毕业论文中英文翻译1.doc

毕业设计（论文）外文翻译毕业设计（论文）题目：零售业态的选择与趋势研究 外文题目：HOW PROMOTIONS WORK译文题目：促销的作用学生姓名： 专 业： 指导教师： HOW PROMOTIONS WORK(From: ROBERT C. BLATTBERG, RICHARD BR1ESCH, AND EDWARD J. FOX. HOW PROMOTIONS WORK. MARKETING SCIENCE, Vol. 14, No. 3 Supplement, Summer 1995, pp. G122-G132.)By synthesizing findings across the sales promotion literature, this article helps the reader understand how promotions work. We identify and explain empirical generalizations related to sales promotion; that is, effects that have been found consistently in multiple studies involving different researchers. We also identify issues which have generated conflicting findings in the research, as well as important sales promotion topics that have not yet been studied. This overview of the research and findings from the sales promotion literature is intended to offer direction for future research in the area. (Sales Promotion; Retailer Promotions; Trade Promotion Empirical Generalizations )1. introductionIn many industries, promotions represent a significant percentage of the marketing mix budget. Nondurable goods manufacturers now spend more money on promotions than on advertising. Airlines periodically offer discounts to generate incremental traffic. Financial institutions use promotions to induce customers to use their services or, as in the case of mortgages, often discount first-year rates to obtain a long-term income stream from the customer. Farm equipment manufacturers use price promotions to sell excess inventory. Across industries, then, price promotions are an important part of the marketing mix.Consistent with the focus of this special issue, the purpose of this article is to describe the empirical generalizations that can be drawn from the published literature on price promotions. Actually, the price promotions literature is new relative to other research areas in marketing, having been developed primarily since the early 1980s.Before proceeding, it is useful to describe the types of promotions that will be considered in this article. Generalizations will be drawn regarding both retail and trade promotions, but not manufacturer couponing. Promotions will be considered in a broader context than simply price promotions and will include co-op advertising funds, display allowances to the trade ( the intermediaries in the channel), as well as display and feature advertising activity direct to the consumer. While couponing represents a very important part of the promotional literature and a major expenditure for consumer packaged-goods firms, it will not be considered here due to space limitations.In generalizing empirical findings, it is also important to recognize that most of the published literature is based on empirical research of packaged-good products. This is largely because of the availability of scanner (Point-of-sale) data for consumer packaged goods from syndicated sources such as IRI and A. C. Nielsen.The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides our definition of an empirical generalization; Section 3 offers the generalizations in the promotional literature; Section 4 selects the three most important generalizations to business practice and for academic research; Section 5 provides conclusions.2. Definition of an Empirical GeneralizationThe definition of an empirical generalization used in this article is ( 1 ) the topic being analyzed is well-defined; (2) there are at least three articles by at least three different authors in which empirical research has been conducted in the specific area; and (3) the empirical evidence is consistent, i.e., the sign of the effect is the same in each of the articles.Some research areas should and often do require more empirical evidence before an effect is considered an empirical generalization. It is not possible to make the criteria too stringent for promotions, however, because the area is relatively new. Other writers in this issue will use different definitions, and it will be interesting to compare the generalizations found. Lastly, the general direction of the generalizations will be reported, not the magnitudes. Report elasticities which are comparable across studies. No such standard reporting procedure has been used in the promotional literature, hence it is not possible to report the general magnitude of effects. This issue is discussed in more detail in the last section of the paper.3. Empirical GeneralizationsBefore listing the specific generalizations, it is valuable to identify the types of topics that have received pr/mary emphasis in the promotions literature. Table I provides a brief description of the topic areas and the number of articles devoted to each topic. Some articles cover multiple topics and are counted under several topics areas.Listed below are the generalizations and the articles which support those generalizations. 1. Temporary retail price reductions substantially increase sales. The literature has found that temporary retail price promotions cause a significant short-term sales spike. This can be contrasted to consumer advertising (not retail feature advertising), where it is difficult to see a sales spike corresponding to increases in advertising spending. Sales increases due to temporary retail price promotions were documented by Woodside and Waddle (1975), Moriarty (1985), and Blattberg and Wisniewski (1987). This result is fundamental to virtually all research done in the area of promotions. 2. Higher market share brands are less deal elastic. This result implies that higher share brands have lower deal elasticities,2 even though higher share brands may capture a large proportion of switchers. The result was found by Bolton (1989), Bemmaor and Mouchoux ( 1991 ), and Vilcassim and Jain ( 199l ). These articles all use market share as the dependent variable. TABLE 1Number of ArUcles by Topic Area Description of the Topic Number of ArticleVariations in consumer responsiveness to deals-Differences in consumer response to promotions by product, category-, market, and type of consumer 24Sources of deal volume-Sources of incremental promotional sales as a result of changes in purchase behavior associated with the promotion, including brand- and store-switching, purchase acceleration, and stockpiling17Cross-deal effects-The impact of a particular brand's or categary's promotion on other brands or categories17General magnitude of deal and price effects-Magnitudes of changes ia purchase behavior and product sales as a result of promotions and associated temporary price reductions14Impact of deal depth and frequency of deals-Effect of variation in promotional discount levels and promotional frequency on product sales or consumer purchase behavior 14Merchandising and advertising effects on promotion-Effect of merchandising and advertising conditions on promotional response12Long-term effects of deals The effect of promotions over time on brand sales and profits 8Pass-through of trade deal funds-The proportion of manufacturers' promotional funds offered to channel members which are, in turn, offered to consumers in the form of temporary price discounts7Troughs after deal-The reduction in product sales following a promotional period due to changes in consumer purchase behavior as a result of the promotion 6Store switching effects-The impact of promotions on consumers' store choice (as opposed to the frequency of store visits) 6Psychological pricing of deals-The effect of price points and multiple pricing, independent of the depth of discount1 3. The frequency of deals changes the consumer's reference price. This finding is important because it offers an explanation for the loss of brand equity when brands are heavily promoted. A lower consumer reference price reduces the premium that can be charged for a brand in the marketplace, which results in less "equity." The effect of deal frequency on consumers' reference price was found by Lattin and Bucklin ( 1989 ), Kalwaul et al. ( 1990 ), Kalwani and Yin (1992), and Mayhew and Winer( 1992 ). 4. The greater the frequency of deals, the lower the height of the deal spike. This result is likely to be caused by ( 1 ) consumer expectations about the frequency of deals and (2) changes in the consumer's reference price. The empirical result was documented by Bolton (1989), Raju (1992), and indirectly through the preceding generalization (#3), which, in combination with Wirier ( 1986 )/Putler ( 1992 ), links reference price to purchase behavior. While some articles use cross-sectional models and some use time-series models, this generalization refers to time-series results. 5. Cross-promotional effects are asymmetric, and promoting higher quality brands impacts weaker brands (and private label products) disproportionately. Promoting certain brands causes customers to switch from a competing brand in greater numbers than promoting that competing brand will cause to switch from them. One possible explanation is that asymmetry in switching is due to differences in brand equity. Numerous other explanations have been offered in the literature, such as prospect theory ( Kahneman and Tversky 1979 and Hardie et al. 1993). Asymmetric switching was documented by Blatt-berg and Wisniewski (1987) and (1989), Krishnamurthi and Raj (1988) and (1991),Cooper (1988), and Walters ( 1991 ). This result was also found by Allenby and Rossi (1991), Bemmaor and Mouchoux (199l), Grover and Srinivasan (1992), Kamakura and Russell (1989), Mulhern and Leone ( 1991 ), and Vilcassim and Jain ( 1991 ).An extension of this finding focuses on asymmetries in brands' perceived type or tier and predicts the impact that promoting a brand in a given tier is likely to have on switching from brands in other tiers. Promoting higher tier brands generates more switching than does promoting lower tier brands. This result was found by Blattberg and Wisniewski (1989), Kamakura and Russell (1989), Mulhern and Leone ( 1991 ), and Allenby and Rossi ( 1991 ). 6. Retailers pass-through less than 100% of trade deals'. Because retailers are the vehicle for pass-through of trade promotional money to consumers, it is important to recognize that most brands receive far less than 100% pass-through.3 Curhan and Kopp (1986) found that brand characteristics result in different levels of pass-through. The finding that less than 100% of trade promotion funds are passed through was made by: Chevalier and Curhan ( 1976 ), Curhan and Kopp (1986), Walters ( 1989 ), and Blattberg and Neslin (1990). 7. Display and feature advertising have strong effects on item sales. Most practitioners already know this result-it is somewhat obvious. However, an important related issue is the interaction between feature advertising and display and the synergistic effect that is created. Few empirical results have been generated regarding the synergies between feature advertising, displays, and price discounts. The effect of display and feature advertising was found by Woodside and Waddle (1975), Blattberg and Wisniewski (1987), and Kumar and Leone (1988). Bemmaor and Mouchoux ( 1991 ), Bolton (1989), and Kumar and Leone (1988) also confirm this effect. 8. Advertised promotions can result in increased store traffic. There is surprisingly little empirical work devoted to this issue, given its practical importance. The weight of evidence (four studies versus one), however, is that advertised promotions of some products and categories do have an impact on store traffic.4 A likely explanation for Vilcassim and Chintagunta's (1992) failure to find a significant store-switching effect for the cracker category is that the magnitude of this effect varies depending upon the category. Research should be done to identify' which categories have more substantial impact on store switching. The positive effect of advertised promotions on store traffic was found by Walters and Rinnc (1986), Kumar and Leone (1988), Walters and MacKenzie (1988), and Grover and Srinivasan (1992). 9. Promotions affect sales in complementary and competitive categories. This finding is also well understood by practitioners, though the magnitude of this effect is not. The sales impact of promoting one category on a complementary or competing category is very likely a function of the type and characteristics of the categories themselves. The effect of promotions on complementary and competitive categories was found by Walters and Rinne (1986), Walters and MacKenzie (1988), Mulhern (1989), Mulhem Leone(1991),and Walters(1991).4. Importance of the GeneralizationTo highlight the most important generalizations, we have selected three generalizations which are particularly important to business practice and three which are particularly important to academic research. The selections are subjective and based on the authors' experiences, but they allow others to consider the impact of specific areas of research on both business practice and academic research. No inferences about relative importance are intended based on the order in which the key generalizations are presented.The most important generalizations for business practice are ( 1 ) promotions significantly increase sales, (2) retailers pass-through less than 100% of trade deals, and (3)advertised promotions can increase store traffic. That promotions significantly increase sales is vital to both packaged goods and durables in light of the dramatic growth of promotional spending in marketing budgets over the past decade. Retailers passing- through less than 100% of trade deals is a crucial issue which is fundamental to the success or failure of manufacturer programs to reduce promotional spending e.g., Procter & Gamhle's "value pricing"). That advertised promotions can increase store traffic is also critical to practitioners, because this must be true, retailer strategy to be viable.Generalizations of particular importance for academic research are ( 1 ) the frequency of deals changes reference price, (2) greater deal frequency lowers the deal spike, and (3) cross-promotional effects are asymmetric. The generalization that deal frequency changes reference price has helped stimulate the development of an increasingly extensive literature on reference price. The generalization that deal frequency lowers the deal spike has contributed heavily to consumer behavior research regarding promotions. The empirical generalization that cross-promotional effects are asymmetric has had a large imp