TheImpactofCrisisSalesPromotionsonBranded andUnbrandedToys DanijelBratina Thispaperpresentstheresearchfindingsofatoysbrandssalespromo- tionsstudyconductedinq4 (4 thquarter)ofyears2007 and2009 (pre- and mid- crisis). The primary research objectives were to determine the impact of economic crisis determinants (such as lowered purcha- sing power, increased unemploymentrates, changed purchasing beha- vior ofconsumers)on newyears’ toy sales, in particular the impact on knownbrands’salesvs.salesofunbrandedproducts.Eightknowntoys brandspromotionssaleshavebeencomparedtoeightunbrandedcom- petitive products in different toys subcategories for the two q4 of year 2007 and 2009 . Findings show that although the mean purchase amo- unthadconsiderablydiminishedinyear2009 ,majorbrandssaleswere notaffectedatall. Key Words: scan *pro model,effectsofcrisisonpurchasing behaviour,toysmarket,salespromotionseffects jel Classification:m31 Introduction Sales promotions have been increasingly used as the primary marketing communicationtoolinalmostallconsumermarkets.Thisisduetotheir relatively easy accountability and immediate effects, compared to other elements of the marketing communication mix. (Bell, Chiang, and Pad- manabhan 1999 ; Conchar and Zinkhan 2005 ; Assmus, Farley, and Lee- hmann 1984 ; Bucklin and Gupta2000 ;T ellis1988 ;VanHeerde1999 )Al- though there has been an increased interest in gaining some generaliza- tions from sales promotion activities, few conclusions have been made sofarontheimpactofsalespromotions(mainlypricereductions),with the exception of the fact that temporary reductions of prices considera- bly increase sales for the time of the promotion being in effect. Other researches, such as pre- and post- promotion dips, long term effects of sales promotions and other, have not yet reached a generalization state. This is mainly due to the fact that it is impossible to include all deter- DanijelBratinaisaSeniorLecturerattheFacultyofManagement, UniversityofPrimorska,Slovenia. ManagingGlobalTransitions9 (2 ):185 –198 186 DanijelBratina minants that affect consumer behavior in a purchasing process (Jedidi, Mela,andGupta1999 ;Raju1992 ). Salesoftoyshavehistoricallybeenheavilypromotedinq4 oftheyear, due to the Christmas season. q4 sales compared to the other periods of the year also account for around 70 % of total annual volume. Typical marketingactivitiesthatareusedbyretailersinthisperiodareheavydi- scounting, price bundling, catalogue sales, increasedtv advertising and increasedin-storepromotions. Ourstudyarisesfromaformerstudyoftheimpactsofpricepromoti- onsonbrandsthatwasconductedin2007 andincludedtoybrands.Our findings at that time were that brands’ equity as defined by Aaker (1991 ) or Keller (1998 ) determinants (whichever used) have negative effects on sales promotions, meaning that the more powerful the brand, the less effect sales promotion has on its sales during the period of discounted pricing.Thisfactdoesnotchangeifadditionalmarketingcommunicati- onstools(advertising,pointofpurchaseadvertising,...)areused. The economic crisis started in Slovenia with a delay of 9 –12 months, where its effects started to show only by the end of 2008 . On the other hand, Slovenia was among the hardest hit economies in the eu -25 ,its gnp in 2009 reaching a drop of 8 .5 %(surs2009 ). Some Asian and Ea- stern Europe countries had declared themselves to be out of recession already in 2009 , while Slovenia in 2010 was still well into the recovery process. Some studies have been conducted on the changes of purchasing be- havior during recession (e.g. Faganel 2011 ). Perhaps the most compre- hensive is that of Granfield (2009 ), who lists ten effects of crisis on pur- chasingtrends,namely: TheAldieffect – finding cheaper retailoutlets to purchasethe same things,ratherthannotpurchasingatall. The lipstick effect – purchasing items of smaller value in place of moreexpensive luxuryitemsasapersonaltreat. The armchair effect – consumers look to their homes as the new entertainment hub; triggers home upgrades as they wish to make houses“entertainment” ready. The rain-check effect – high value purchase decisions, or high risk decisions, will be put on hold, as consumers look to postpone any non-essential purchasestomoresettledeconomictimes. The Mr. Burns effect – consumers reduce charitable donations and ethicalbehavioursinthefaceofeconomic downturn. ManagingGlobalTransitions TheImpactofCrisisSalesPromotionsonBrandedandUnbrandedToys 187 table 1 Effectsofcrysisonsales Type of effect Purchasingbehaviour Aldieffect Lesstotalrevenue Lipstickeffect Buyingcheaperand/orunbrandedtoys Armchair effect Lesstotalrevenueduetoreuseofalreadyownedtoys Rain-checkeffect Lesstotalrevenue Mr.Burnseffect Noeffect Herd effect Increasedimpactofothereffects diy effect Lesstotalrevenue Real Money effect Buyingcheaperand/orunbrandedtoys+diminishedbuying oncreditterms Optimisteffect Increasedsalesofcreativetoys Calvin effect Lookforvalueinatoyratherthanjustbuypresents. The herd effect – even those consumers with financial stability will modifybehaviours,influenced bythebehaviourandpanicofthose aroundthem. The diy effect – consumers will start to opt for self-service rather thando-it-for-me,asdecreasingdiscretionaryspendingforcesthem tocutbackonnon-essential services. The Real Money effect – consumers avoid using voluntary credit as they fear committing themselves to a future debt, i.e. Will I have themoney topayoffthatsofain24 monthstime? The optimism effect – consumers will look to companies or brands with fun/light-hearted personalities that relieve the temporary doom&gloomoflife. TheCalvineffect –consumerslooktoreinintheirhedonisticspen- ding patterns in favour of a more conservative approach to their money. In terms of purchasingtoys within a single toys’ chain (the possibility of switching stores being excluded), these effects could be summarized asshownintable1 . The purpose of our study was to determine which of the above men- tionedeffectshaveactuallyaffectedconsumersintheirpurchasingbeha- viour of toys. Not all effects, however, can be explicitly confirmed beca- use, as shown in table 1,somee ffects have equal impacts and it is diffi- cult to attribute the impact to a single effect. We thus focused our rese- arch on the changes in sales of unbranded vs. branded products, chan- Volume 9 ·Number 2 ·Summer 2011 188 DanijelBratina ges in total revenue, mean purchase amount to account for aggregated Aldi/diy /Armchair effects and for the Lipstick/Real Money/Calvin ef- fects. ResearchObjectivesandMethodology The aim of our research is to gain an insight into the effects of the crisis periodonsalesofbranded andunbranded products. The research studies sales promotion effects (quantities sold) during anon-crisisandacrisisperiod(q4 in 2007 and2009 )on8 different toy products from5 different subcategories oftoys.Wefocusedourresearch on5 subcategories of toys – in parenthesis themarketleader for the Slo- venian marketislistedandhasbeencomparedtoanunbranded copyor equivalent: 1.C o n s t r u c t i o nt o y s( lego ) 2 . r /c (radio/controlled) cars(Nikko) 3 . r /c flying toys (Silverlit) 4 . Babydolls(BabyBorn) 5 . Electronic educational toys for6 m(FisherPrice) 6 . Racingcarslots(Carrera) 7 . Girls’dolls(Barbie) 8 . Musicalinstrument(Bontempi) All brands have been compared to their complementary unbranded (or unknown brands) products. To determine toy brands’ equity deter- minants we used Keller’s (1998 ) model of brand equity, which is based on two groups of determinants – brand recognition and brand image. Thepurposeofthispaperisnottoargueorstudydifferent brand equity modelsnoritistoevaluatetheKeller’smodel.Wethususedasimpleme- thod to determine the two brand equity determinants by surveying cu- stomers of a determined toy’s chain in two different periods (December 2007 andDecember2009 )abouttheknowledgeof theabovementioned brands. Surveying was conducted by paid interviewers positioned at the exits of 10 different stores of the same chain, who in total surveyed 450 respondents in2008 and390 respondents in2009 . Brand awareness was measured with an open-ended question to assess un-helped recognition and a dichotomic question to assess helped awareness. Both have been combinedintoafactorofawareness(biasedaverage–70 %ofun-helped recognitionand30 %ofhelped–intoasinglepercentageunitmeasuring ManagingGlobalTransitions TheImpactofCrisisSalesPromotionsonBrandedandUnbrandedToys 189 table 2 Calculatedbrand awarenessdeterminant Brand 2007 2009 lego 100 100 Nikko 45 40 Silverlit 35 50 BabyBorn 65 67 FisherPrice 95 90 Carrera 67 70 BarbieMattel 92 90 table 3 Calculatedbrand image Brand 2007 2009 Lego 90 86 Nikko 70 60 Silverlit 80 76 BabyBorn 76 74 FisherPrice 88 82 Carrera 64 45 BarbieMattel 61 49 brand awareness). The twoquestions measuring brand imagehave been equally aggregated into a single factor of brand image. Results for both yearsareshownintable2 (awareness)andtable3 (image). Sales quantities have been downloaded from the selected toy’s chain sales from 1 . Oct till 31 .Dec2007 and 1.Oct.till31 .Dec2009 from 10 of their major stores spread around Slovenia (5 located in towns with populationabove10 ,000 ,and5 intownswithpopulationbelow10 ,000 ). Because of the confidientiality agreement we are unable to disclose the absolute monetary values of sales, we only show relative sales values of differentbrandsineachstoreinyear2009 comparedtotheyear2007 .To eliminate the doubt of sales being affected by some new items’ one-year hit (like for example Tamagochi in 2000 ) we only looked at one single product’s sale (or its replacement – new packaging/restyling) for each different brand. Competitive (unbranded) products were selected using the following criteria: same sub-category, same size, same or comparable functions. Although this was fairly easy for some brands (Lego, Silverlit),we found it very hard in other (baby born, Fisher price), mainly due to the large selection of unbranded alternatives. We opted for a solution of the best- selling competitive alternative. Sales are shown in tables 4 (2007 ) and 5 (2009 ). In both periods analyzed, the five stores from bigger towns show an inverted picture as opposed to the five stores from smaller towns. While in bigger towns there is a strong preference for the branded products, the difference is not so big for the shops in smaller towns (sig.< 0 .01 ). Thiscouldbeduetoanextremedifferenceinpurchasingpowerbetween bigger and smaller towns in Slovenia (surs2009 ), where the difference Volume 9 ·Number 2 ·Summer 2011 190 DanijelBratina table 4 Quantitiessoldin2007 Store Lego Nikko Silverlit Baby born Fisher Price Carrera Barbie Mattel Unbrand. Unbrand. Unbrand. Unbrand. Unbrand. Unbrand. Unbrand. Store1 150 25 102 55 110 25 45 15 20 20 12 25 10 9 Store2 122 25 98 45 79 23 23 18 26 10 12 30 2 7 Store3 114 18 50 40 102 18 6 21 41 21 21 528 Store48 82 97 13 07 71 02 5 15 15 25 8 30 3 12 Store57 51 74 02 25 554 3 25 10 6 10 10 0 12 Store69 81 42 52 23 065 30 3 7 18 20 7 9 Store77 51 02 61 21 526 1371 51 51 99 Store84 551 48531 2 31 51 01 41 570 Store92 371 091 788 21 21 51 52 71 01 2 Store10 12 6 5 3 0 9 4 0 7 18 8 5 12 9 Total 802 156 441 246 490 109 177 111 125 130 124 192 72 87 between the richest and poorest areas is more than 200 %(intermsof salaries). Branded products all show an increased number of units sold (except forLego),whileunbrandeditemsshowadecreaseinthenumberofpro- ductssoldbetweenthetwoperiodsanalysed. BrandDeterminants As already mentioned, brand determinants from a simplified Keller’s brand equity model have been computed using a cross-sectional ques- ManagingGlobalTransitions TheImpactofCrisisSalesPromotionsonBrandedandUnbrandedToys 191 table 5 Quantitiessoldin2009 Store Lego Nikko Silverlit Baby born Fisher Price Carrera Barbie Mattel Unbrand. Unbrand. Unbrand. Unbrand. Unbrand. Unbrand. Unbrand. Store1 155 41 113 71 118 19 29 15 21 22 6 25 1 13 Store2 130 25 112 59 75 38 29 1901 21 708 Store39 93 26 84 29 62 99 7701 71 109 Store49 54 67 01 39 52 52 9 12 12 28 12 34 0 0 Store56 42 14 264 645 4 22 11 0 9 0 0 0 Store67 842 42 52 321 7 30 6 0 1 23 5 14 Store75 92 63 01 11 803 5381 91 72 31 4 Store85 91 1371 91 62 7 5801 51 51 00 Store99901 6335 0 3 19 16 21 14 0 Store10 1 0 20 13 8 4 6 372 10460 Total 749 215 482 263 501 140 208 100 87 98 107 167 59 58 tionnaire. Brand awareness and image (computed variables) are shown intables5 and6 . We have tested both samples for statistical differences and found the following evidence. Except for the brand Silverlit, all brands show a de- crease in perceived quality levels and in positive associations, and all exceptLegoarestatisticallysignificant(p< 0 .01 ).Silverlitwasarelatively newbrandin2007 ,thusanincreaseinitsawarenessandknowledgecould derive from this fact. While for the others, being very different brands, showingsimilarpatterns,wecoulddeducethat,withanincreasedinvol- Volume 9 ·Number 2 ·Summer 2011 192 DanijelBratina table 6 AwarenessvariablesofKeller’sbrandequitymodel Lego Nikko Silverlit Babyborn Fisher Price Carrera Barbie Mattel 2007 ,n= 450 (1 ) 100 20 30 40 70 15 80 (2 ) 1 0 07 06 08 09 06 09 5 (3 ) 100 35 39 52 76 28 .58 4 .5 2009 ,n= 390 (1 ) 100 18 55 28 48 10 90 (2 ) 100 56 75 65 75 55 82 (3 ) 100 29 .46 13 9 .15 6 .13 0 .58 7 .6 Notes: (1 )perceivedquality,(2 )percentageofpositiveassociations,(3 )computedaware- nessvariable. table 7 ImagevariablesofKeller’sbrandequitymodel Lego Nikko Silverlit Babyborn Fisher Price Carrera Barbie Mattel 2007 ,n= 450 (1 ) 4 .22 .62 .53 .54 .41 .52 .2 (2 ) 80 45 55 80 78 45 75 (3 ) 82 48 .55 2 .57 58 33 7 .55 9 .5 2009 ,n= 390 (1 ) 4 .12 .73 .434 .21 .73 (2 ) 75 49 52 77 74 28 77 (3 ) 78 .55 1 .56 06 8 .57 93 16 8 .5 Notes: (1 )perceivedquality,(2 )percentageofpositiveassociations,(3 )computedaware- nessvariable. vement ofthe purchaser’smental activity in the process ofthe products’ acquisition, theybecomemorecriticalaboutproducts. AModelofSales:ImpactofBrandEquityDeterminantsonSales Promotions Dataavailabilityfromthecompany’sinformationsystem(quantitiessold of each item/day, price of sold item, promotion activities, catalogue da- tes,...) allowed us to build a scan *pro (Wittink et al. 1988 )model of sales promotion, in which we added brand equity determinants. We appliedthemostcommonlyusedmodelforanalyzingtheeffectsofsales ManagingGlobalTransitions TheImpactofCrisisSalesPromotionsonBrandedandUnbrandedToys 193 promotions–Wittink’sscan *pro model–whichtodatehasbeenused in already more than 2000 different research studies (Bratina and Faga- nel2008 ).Itwouldbebeyondthescopeofthispapertoproposeandtest differentfundamentalapproachestothestudyofsalespromotioneffects, andthusweapplied themostwidely used.scan *pro canbewritten as: Q it = P jt ˜ P j 4 l=1 Υ D ljt lj e υ it .( 1 ) Wherethefirstpartrepresents therelative price (ifnopromotion itis 1 ) and the product represents different promotional activities as well as brand determinants (in our case 4 ). By simple log-log linearization we getasimpleregressionmodel: lnQ it − lnλ i =β i ln P t ˜ P + n l=1 D lt lnγ l +υ it ,( 2 ) wherethetermβ i directlyrepresentspriceelasticity,whiletermsD lt show theimpactofcatalogue,brandawareness andbrandimage. It could be argued that some determinants have not been included (such as advertising). We have omitted this on purpose to allow for the model to be built exclusively on company’s internal data. Advertising data areusually available only fromsyndicated researchcompanies. The company itself did no advertising (except for the catalogues), but some advertising has been done bythe suppliers of thetoys themselves. Themodelwebuiltuseddailydatafrom1.Octto31 .Decinyears2007 and2009 .Sincealltenstoreshadthesamemarketingactivitiesvariables (price changes at same time, in-store display on same dates and other communication mix activities), first we aggregated daily sales among all stores. Such data however are subject to daily fluctuation of sales due to uncontrolledeffects(weather,discreteevents,...).Findingsareshownin table7 (for2007 )and8 (for2009 ). Models’ R 2 vary from 0 .35 to 0 .75 which makes them relevant (using theruleofthumbstatingtheR 2 thresholdof0 .25 ). Bothmodels,from2007 and2009 ,showthat branded products’price elasticity is lower than unbranded. This could be due to two facts – brand’s immunity to price promotion (an attribute that could be used asameasureofthebrand’spower,seeAaker1991 )orthefactthatbrands amounts their products less often and for lower discounts. Such disco- untscouldend upbelowthethresholdline(Hannsens, Parsons,andSc- Volume 9 ·Number 2 ·Summer 2011 194 DanijelBratina table8 scan *pro coefficents for sales in2007 Brand Price Catalogue* Brandawar. Brandimage Lego –1 .2 –0 .266 0 .066 0 .041 Unbranded –2 .12 0 n/a n/a Nikko –0 .23 0 .316 0 .669 0 .722 Unbranded –1 .40n/a n/a Silverlit –0 .25 –0 .945 0 .749 0 Unbranded –0 .52 0 n/a n/a Babyborn –0 .12 –0 .171 0 .342 0 .132 Unbranded –0 .33 –0 .473 n/a n/a FisherPrice –0 .6 –0 .54 0 .007 0 .097 Unbranded –1 .2 –0 .7 n/a n/a Carrera –0 .3 –1 .02 10 .43 0 .845 Unbranded –0 .5 –5 n/a n/a BarbieMattel –1 .3 –0 .30 .285 0 .348 Unbranded –2 –0 .1 n/a n/a Notes: *1 =yes,0 =no;n/a=notavailable,notmeasured. hultz 2001 ; Van Heerde, Leefland, and Wittink 2001 ) of a demand/price curve, and thus cause no effects. We deduce that the first fact is true, as the discount depth and frequency in not different between branded and unbranded products.Itshouldalsobenotedthatin2009 priceelasticity decreased forbranded productsandincreasedforunbranded. Discussion If we first analyze quantities sold in q4 of 2007 and 2009 ,usingasim- ple two samples t-test, we can statistically confirm that sales of branded items were affected positively, while sales of unbranded items dimini- shed during the same period in the 5 stores inside major towns, while this effect is less evident for the five stores in smaller towns. Increases in branded items sales vary from0 %to70 % in major stores, and from0 % to55 %instoreslocatedinsmallertowns.Atthesametimethetotaltur- nover of branded items (in monetary values) increased by 18 %(figures not shown due do privacy protection), while unbranded items showed only a3 %increaseinthesametime(aggregated forallten stores). Brandawarenessdeterminantsandbrandimagedeterminantshaveon average not changed in the two periods. However some brands showed ManagingGlobalTransitions TheImpactofCrisisSalesPromotionsonBrandedandUnbrandedToys 195 table9 scan *pro coefficientsin2009 Brand Price Catalogue* Brandawar. Brandimage Lego –0 .8 –0 .35 0 .02 0 .05 Unbranded –1 .50n/a n/a Nikko –0 .2 n/a 0 .70 .712 Unbranded n/a 0 n/a n/a Silverlit –0 .5 –1 .20 .545 0 Unbranded –0 .60n/a n/a Babyborn –0 .06 –0 .15 0 .214 0 .121 Unbranded n/a –0 .32 n/a n/a FisherPrice –1 .2 –0 .70 .125 0 .023 Unbranded n/a n/a n/a n/a Carrera –0 .5 –1 .30 .52 0 .23 Unbranded n/a n/a n/a n/a BarbieMattel –1 .3 –0 .50 .42 0 .52 Unbranded –2 n/a n/a n/a Notes: *1 =yes,0 =no;n/a=notavailable,notmeasured. statistically significant changes in positive direction (Silverlit) and nega- tive(Babyborn,FisherPrice)forcalculatedawareness,andpositive(Sil- verlit, Barbie)andnegative(Babyborn,Carrera)forcalculatedimage. We tried to find a correlation between brand’s equity factors (aware- ness and image – as aggregated variables and as separate determinants) andthechangeinquantitiessold/turnovercreatedforallthebrandsana- lyzed.Wefoundonlyweakpositivecorrelationbetweenbrandawareness (any combination) andquantities sold.Allother correlations werestati- sticallyinsignificant. Themodelshownintable9 represents a sales forecast model based on the scan *pro model. It is known that such models have powerful prediction results around data points, but fail considerably on the ed- ges (close or equal to zero and large discounts) of continuous variables. Thisismainlyduetosimplificationofthemodeltoaeasilyinterpretable model, while it has been proven that the sales deal curve is S- shaped, where the left arm of the S-shape is attributed to consumer’s threshold, where consumers are not responding to low or insignificant discounts, while the right arm of the S-shape is attributed to a saturation effect, whereconsumersarereluctanttobuymorethanacertainamountofthe Volume 9 ·Number 2 ·Summer 2011 196 DanijelBratina product, due to their inability to store or consume a greater volume of theproduct.Botheffectsvaryconsiderablyamongdifferentmarketsand fordifferentbrands.Toaccountforbotheffectssemiparametricanalysis is used (Van Heerde, Leefland, and Wittink 2001 , 2004 ). The range of discountsforourproductswasfrom5 While we can confirm that the effect was not negligible for the 5 % discount (we were over the thresholdfor the given product), we can not say for sure that the 40 % was not already in the saturation area of the discount levels as we did not have a continuous set of discounts for a given product,but only afew. The model shows that price elasticity is negative from –0 .12 up to –2 and is higher for unbranded products. Although we can not statistically test it, we can clearly see a pattern where values for price elasticity for branded products are higher in 2007 than in 2009 , while for unbranded products they are higher in 2009 . Consumers shifted their purchases to branded products already before discount periods started, and discoun- tinghadlesseffectonthetotalquantityoftheproductsold.Ontheother hand,unbrandedproductsneededmoreincentives(higherdiscounts)to besold. Catalogue sales (modeled as dummies) contribute additionally to the effect of price promotions, which confirms many other research results (Blattberg and Neslin 1989 ; Assuncao and Meyer 1993 ; Conchar, R., and Zinkhan2005 ;DekimpeandHannsens1995 ;MacéandNeslin2004 ).We werenotabletotestthedifferencebetweenbrandedandunbrandedpro- ductsduetodataunavailability forunbranded products. Conclusion In our research, we evaluate sales for eight branded and unbranded toys productsintwodifferent periods (q4 ofyears2007 and2009 ),wherewe tried to find any effects of crisis on sales. Our findings show that brands copewithcrisisconsiderablybetterthanunbranded productsinallsub- categories studied. Their market share increased in the 2 nd period at the expenses of unbranded products, whose sales recessed. This effect is more pronounced in urban areas, whereas in rural areas it is counter- balanced by a lowered purchasing power, forcing consumers to be more price conscious to the detriment of quality. However the effect of bran- ded sales increase still predominates over the lowered purchasing power effect. LookingthroughtheperspectiveofGranfield’s(2009 )effectsofcrisis, ManagingGlobalTransitions TheImpactofCrisisSalesPromotionsonBrandedandUnbrandedToys 197 we can confirm that consumers have been buying more conservatively (taking less risk) by purchasing branded – higher quality products. Our study does not take into account the price differences between branded and unbranded products, which affect consumers’ functions of benefit (PapatlaandKrishnamurthi1996 ;AssuncaoandMeyer1993 ). Although our study shows some directions, further insight is needed in the research, mainly in terms of accountability for heterogeneity of consumers (using household panels), differences in prices and adding other variables to control the effects on sales (such as advertising and othermarketingcommunicationtools). One should also research for heterogeneity of products, as not only aretheeffectsofpricepromotions ofdifferent types ofproducts (fmcg , durables,...)onsalesdifferent, but also the effectsof thecrisisarediffe- rent. References Aaker, D. A.1991 .ManagingBrandEquity.New York: The Free Press. Assmus, G., J. U. Farley, and D. R. Leehmann. 1984 .‘HowAdvertising AffectsSales:AMetaAnalysisofEconometricResults.’Journalof Mar- ketingResearch21 (1 ):65 –74 . Assuncao,J.L.,andR.J.Meyer.1993 .‘TheRationalEffectofPricePromo- tionsonSalesandConsumption.’ManagementScience39 (5 ):517 –35 . Bell,R.D.,J.Chiang,andV .Padmanabhan.1999 .‘TheDecompositionof Promotional Response: An Empirical Generalization.’ Marketing Sci- ence18 (4 ):504 –26 . Blattberg, R. C., and S. Neslin. 1989 . ‘Sales Promotion: The Long and the Shortofit.’MarketingLetters1 (11 ):81 –97 . Bratina, D.,andA.Faganel.2008 .‘ForecastingthePrimaryDemandfora BeerBrandUsingTimeSeriesAnalysis.’Organizacija41 (3 ):116 . Bucklin, R. E., and S. Gupta. 2000 . ‘Commercial Adoption of Advances in the Analysis of Scanner Data.’ Working paper, Marketing Science Institute,Cambridge,ma . Conchar,M.P .,CraskmM.R.,andG.M.Zinkhan.2005 .‘MarketV alu- ation Models of the Effect of Advertising and Promotional Spending: AReviewandMeta-Analysis.’JournaloftheAcademyofMarketingSci- ence33 (4 ):445 –60 . Dekimpe,M.G.,andD.M.Hannsens.1995 .‘ThePersistenceofMarketing EffectsonSales.’MaketingScience14 (1 ):1 –21 . Faganel, A. 2011 . ‘Recognized values and consumption patterns of post- crisisconsumers.’ManagingGlobalTransitions9 (2 ):151 –170 . Volume 9 ·Number 2 ·Summer 2011 198 DanijelBratina Granfield, M.2009 . ‘The Ten BuyerBehaviour Trendsin Recession2009 .’ http://www.memery.com.au/blog/the-ten-buyer-behaviour-trends -in-a-recession/. Hannsens, D. M., L. J. Parsons, and R. L. Schultz. 2001 . Market Response Models - Econometric and Time Series Analysis, isqm . Boston, ma : Kluwer. Jedidi, K., C. Mela, and S. Gupta. 1999 . ‘Managing Advertising and Pro- motionforLong-RunProfitability.’MarketingScience19 (1 ):1 –22 . Keller, K. L. 1998 . Strategic Brand Management: Building, Managing and MeasuringBrandEquity.UpperSaddleRiver,nj :PrenticeHall. Macé,S.,andS.A.Neslin.2004 . ‘The determinants of pre- and post- promotion dips in sales of frequently purchased goods.’ Journal of MarketingResearch41 (3 ):339 –50 . Papatla, P., and L. Krishnamurthi. 1996 .‘MeasuringtheDynamicE ffects ofPromotionsonBrandChoice.’JournalofMarketingResearch33 :20 – 35 . Raju, J. S.1992 .‘TheEffect of Price Promotions on Variability in Product CategorySales.’MaketingScience11 (3 ):207 –20 . surs . 2009 .‘ S t a t i s t i ˇ cni letopis 2009 :p r e g l e dp os t a t i s t i ˇ cnih regijah.’ http://www.stat .si/letopis/LetopisVsebina.aspx?poglavje=30 &lang=si&leto=2009 . Tellis, G. J. 1988 . ‘The Price Sensitivity of Selective Demand. A Meta- Analysis of Econometric Models of Sales.’ Journal of Marketing Rese- arch25 (4 ):391 –404 . Van Heerde, H. J. 1999 . Models for Sales Promotion Effects Based on Store- LevelScannerData.Ijsel:Labyrint. Van Heerde, H. J., P. S. H. Leefland, and D. R. Wittink. 2001 .‘Semipara- metricAnalysistoestimatetheDealEffectCurve.’JournalofMarketing Resarch37 :197 –215 . ———.2004 .‘DecomposingtheSalesPromotionBumpwithStoreData.’ MarketingScience23 (3 ):317 –34 . W i t t i nk ,D .R . ,M .J .A dd o na ,W .J .H a wk es ,a ndJ .C .P o rt er .1988 . scan *pro : The Estimation, Validation and Use of Promotional Effects BasedonScannerData.Ithaca,ny :CornellUniversity. ManagingGlobalTransitions