اثرات قیمت گذاری بر اساس تاریخ انقضا بر روی درک تصویر ذهنی از برند

Expiration date-based pricing (EDBP) occurs when a grocery retailer reduces the price of a perishable product according to its remaining shelf life. While, conventional wisdom suggests that this practice leads to negative consumer evaluations of brand quality, a series of field experiments reveal negative effects on brand quality perceptions only among loyal consumers and those who perceive low risk associated with perishables. The effect is also mediated by consumer distrust (Study 1). In addition, EDBP has no effect on brand quality image if consumers are already familiar with this pricing practice (Study 2), and it may even generate positive consumer evaluations when framed as a cause-related marketing activity to reduce waste (Study 3). Additional evidence indicates that psychological contract violation perceptions provide the underlying mechanism for explaining consumer responses to EDBP (Study 4). This article ends with an agenda for further research and implications for retail practice.

Variable pricing or price discrimination is a tactic in which a “retailer charges different prices for identical products and/or services sold to different customers” (Levy and Weitz 2006, p. 418). Price discrimination tactics are usually classified according to the rate fence used, that is, the rules that the company uses to determine who gets which price and what determinants can be used to help differentiate one transaction from another (Kimes and Wirtz 2003). Rate fences can be physical (e.g., seat location in a theater, size and furnishings of a hotel room) or nonphysical (e.g., senior citizen, quantity or frequency of purchase; time of booking) characteristics. Expiration date-based pricing is a particular form of second-degree price discrimination, in which the expiration date represents a physical rate fence that discriminates prices (Desiraju and Shugan, 1999, Elmaghraby and Keskinocak, 2003, Gallego and van Ryzin, 1994 and Kimes and Wirtz, 2003); it also constitutes a sales promotion that provides a temporary incentive to encourage the purchase of a perishable. However, EDBP has some particular characteristics that distinguish it from other price discrimination or promotion practices. First, it is a self-selected price discrimination technique (Levy and Weitz 2006), which means that it clearly provides consumers with options. Unlike revenue management practices in the services industry (e.g., airlines), consumers can select whether they will buy a discounted, older item or a regularly priced, fresher version of the product. Second, in contrast with in-store promotion practices, the discounted product in EDBP appears right next to fresher, nondiscounted items. Consequently, this form of promotion presents the price–quality trade-off directly to consumers. Third, the rate fence that EDBP uses is a distinguishing product characteristic, the expiration date, that may function as a signal of product quality (Sen and Block, 2009 and Tsiros and Heilman, 2005) or an attribute that defines the value of the product. Whereas price discrimination in other industries usually tries to discriminate identical products (e.g., tickets for the same journey, identical hotel rooms), the products in an EDBP scheme are not identical, since their expiration dates differ. Fourth, EDBP can be applied solely to perishable product categories, which is largely specific to, and critical for, grocery retailers’ profitability and image (Tsiros and Heilman 2005).

Our research focuses on the pervasive but largely unexplored retail tactic of expiration date-based pricing and investigates how consumers respond to it. Specifically, we focused on the effects of EDBP on consumer perceptions of brand quality. Building on social exchange theory (Blau 1964) and literature pertaining to pricing and expiration dates, we propose that consumers’ expectations regarding perishables’ quality take the form of a psychological contract, as expressed by their expiration date. We introduce the concept of psychological contract violation (PCV) and suggest that EDBP induces PCV-related perceptions. In so doing, we propose a mechanism underlying consumer responses to EDBP and develop hypotheses regarding the effects of EDBP on brand quality image, which should vary according to moderating conditions. Finally, we suggest that consumer distrust mediates these effects. To test our hypotheses and support our theoretical framework, we conducted three field experiments and a lab experiment. Overall, the results suggest that the effect of EDBP on brand image varies and this variance can be explained by the underlying consumer perceptions of psychological contract violation. With Study 1, we showed that the effect of EDBP is weaker or insignificant when consumers perceive higher levels of risk associated with perishables and are not loyal to the brand that uses the EDBP. Although common sense suggests that loyal consumers and consumers with lower risk perceptions should be more reluctant to undergo a negative experience with the brand, the PCV explanation suggests that in the case of EDBP, the negative effect is more prominent for existing rather than new consumers. That is, the effect depends on the existence and nature of the psychological contract between consumers and their brand. In addition, Study 1 revealed that the effects of EDBP are mediated by consumers’ distrust. Study 2 confirmed that as consumers become more familiar with EDBP, its negative effects decline, which implies insignificant long-term effects. With Study 3, we investigated whether framing EDBP as a cause-related marketing activity that reduces waste generates more positive consumer evaluations. These results showed that a CRM-framed EDBP generates more positive consumer evaluations than a promotion-framed one. Thus, EDBP has a negative effect on brand image only for loyal consumers, when consumers perceive low risk related to the expiration date, or if they are unfamiliar with this practice. The effect of EDBP on brand image is insignificant among nonloyal consumers, when consumers perceive high expiration date risk, or if they are already familiar with it. Finally, we confirm that EDBP can have a positive effect if framed as a CRM activity. The findings thus give managers some recommendations (see Table 5) regarding how to implement EDBP, and perhaps other price discrimination practices, successfully. Although the conventional wisdom suggests EDBP destroys brand image, our results show that under specific conditions, it can provide a successful waste reduction and revenue management practice with no negative effects for brand image. In addition, the Study 2 results indicate that as consumers become increasingly familiar with this practice, it stops having negative effects on brand image. That is, as consumers accept the practice, they distinguish it from their brand image perceptions; in the long-term, managers should focus on the positive aspects of EDBP, such as lower prices. This pricing practice can be particularly successful for categories with high expiration date risk, which are the same categories that generate the most waste for retailers, because consumers tend to avoid purchasing products near their expiration date. If they were to apply EDBP to these high-risk products, retailers could reduce waste significantly without harming their brand image. Finally, framing EDBP as a green marketing practice generates positive brand image perceptions, as we showed empirically in Study 3.Additional research should address some limitations of our investigation and build on its findings. Although brand image is a significant outcome of consumer responses to a pricing tactic, purchase intentions or decisions offer other important variables to be examined. It would be of particular importance to study what drives consumers’ decision between a fresher versus a cheaper perishable product. Furthermore, the long-term effect of this pricing practice on future price expectation would also be important to be examined (Tsiros and Hardesty 2010). For example, the promotion literature suggests that this pricing practice may be harmful in the long-term because it will significantly lower price expectations and therefore consumers will constantly seek the cheaper version of perishables (DelVecchio, Henard, and Freling 2006). Although we examined two different product categories, it would be useful to test for differences across several other perishable product categories such as fresh fruit and vegetables. Furthermore, it would be interesting to examine how existing trust to the perishables’ seller may moderate the effect of EDBP. Moreover, in the experimental design of Study 3, the CRM concept was tied with the pricing practice, in order to investigate a managerially relevant way suggested by previous research (Tsiros and Heilman 2005) to reduce possible negative effects of EDBP. It is possible however, that any type of CSR appeal may have a similar effect, according to relevant literature (Klein and Dawar 2004). Future research could investigate more holistically the role of CSR on EDBP.12 In contrast with most research into consumer–retailer relationships that focuses on trust, we propose distrust as an alternative and conceptually different construct for modeling consumer responses. Further research might apply it in various contexts. Finally, the PCV approach could provide a strong theoretical framework for studying consumer responses to other marketing actions in environments that may be characterized by any kind of contractual agreements between consumers and a brand.