Deal Me In!: Assessing Consumer Response to Daily-Deal Sites
Extended Abstract
Kelty Logan, Ph.D.
Journalism and Mass Communication
University of Colorado
Boulder, Colorado
kelty.logan@colorado.edu
Laura F. Bright, Ph.D.
Schieffer School of Journalism
Texas Christian University
Fort Worth, Texas
l.bright@tcu.edu
Direct / Interactive Marketing Research Summit
Las Vegas, Nevada
October 13 – 14, 2012
Running Head: Deal Me In! Assessing Consumer Response to Daily-Deal Sites
Since 2008 Americans have been coping with the gravest economic recession since the
Great Depression of the 1930s. As consumers, they have responded to the economic challenges
by reducing consumption, increasing selectivity, and increasing coupon usage. They are not
only more likely to use coupons delivered by mail, newspaper, or stores; they are more likely to
download coupons (Deloitte 2010). In fact, 25% of American shoppers are likely to use coupons
sent to their mobile devices. This behavior is even more pronounced among younger shoppers.
In fact, 40% of American shoppers aged 18-34 are likely to use coupons sent to their mobile
devices (BrandSpark 2010). This study examines factors that influence usage of daily-deal sites
among young adults (aged 18-34). Specifically, it seeks to apply a theoretical framework, the
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), in regard to the role of individuals’ beliefs and attitudes
when forming intentions to use a daily-deal site.
Daily-deal sites comprise a $2 billion industry that has grown more than 300% since
2007. Groupon and LivingSocial account for more than half of the revenues (IBISWorld 2012).
In fact, it appears that the industry is consolidating. Nearly one-third of the daily-deal sites in the
United States shut down during 2011, including entries by Facebook and Yelp (Raice 2011).
Groupon remains the daily-deal site giant, accounting for approximately 12 million unique
visitors during December 2011 compared to 4 million for LivingSocial (Schonfeld 2012).
Daily-deal sites offer discounts on goods and services for a limited time (typically 24 to
36 hours). Customers purchase vouchers to be redeemed for the physical good or service. The
industry's revenue includes the price paid by the customer for the voucher or the coupon; profit is
earned after paying an agreed-upon percentage of the purchase price to the featured business.
Groupon and LivingSocial have both launched mobile applications allowing users to buy deals
on their phones and retrieve them using the screen as a coupon. Importantly, the growth of daily1
Running Head: Deal Me In! Assessing Consumer Response to Daily-Deal Sites
deal sites has been fueled by local businesses rather than national brands (Weiss 2012). Dailydeal sites offer small business advantages compared to newspaper, radio, and online advertising
because they do not charge for placement and provide targeted distribution.
Theoretical Model
The TAM (Davis 1986), an adaptation of the Theory of Reasoned Action, was developed
to model acceptance of information systems. TAM assumes that Attitude toward the Act directly
affects Behavioral Intent (Davis 1986). Attitude toward the Act is affected by beliefs (Perceived
Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use) regarding the specific behavior and is indirectly affected
by external variables. The model also assumes that Perceived Usefulness has a direct effect on
Behavioral Intent while the effect of Perceived Ease of Use on Behavioral Intent is mediated by
Perceived Usefulness and Attitude toward the Act.
A research model was developed to test the relationships among the core TAM variables
and four external variables (Brand Consciousness, Online Ad Skepticism, Information-Seeking,
Social Media Self-Efficacy). Specifically, the research model proposed that Social Media SelfEfficacy had a direct effect on Perceived Ease of Use but not on Perceived Usefulness. Online
Advertising Skepticism and Information-Seeking Behavior had direct effects on Perceived
Usefulness but not on Perceived Ease of Use. The research model also proposed that Brand
Consciousness – a construct that underlies a great deal of consumer behavior – was not directly
related to beliefs that ultimately affect use of daily-deal sites. The four external variables were
designated exogenous variables and allowed to freely correlate. (See Figure 1)
H1: Perceived Usefulness positively affects Attitude toward the Act.
H2: Perceived Ease of Use positively affects Attitude toward the Act.
H3: Perceived Ease of Use positively affects Perceived Usefulness.
H4: Perceived Usefulness positively affects Behavioral Intent.
H5: Attitude toward the Act positively affects Behavioral Intent.
H6: Brand Consciousness does not affect the Perceived Usefulness of daily-deal sites.
2
Running Head: Deal Me In! Assessing Consumer Response to Daily-Deal Sites
H7: Information-seeking behavior positively affects Perceived Usefulness of daily-deal
sites.
H8: Consumers’ perceptions of the usefulness of daily-deal sites will be negatively
affected by their skepticism of online advertising.
H9: Social media self-efficacy is positively related to Perceived Ease of Use of dailydeal sites.
Methodology
A 122-item questionnaire was developed and administered to a representative sample of
social media users between the ages of 18 – 34 via an opt-in subject pool. The final sample
consisted of 502 social media users who engage with various SNSs, including daily-deal sites.
Amongst this sample, 51.6% (N=259) were male and 48.4% (N=243) were female. Respondents
ranged from 18 to 34 with 49.2% (N=247) between the ages of 18-24 and 50.8% (N=255)
between the ages of 25-34. The racial, ethnic, geographic, and income composition of the sample
was roughly comparable to those of U.S. Internet users. (US Census 2010)
The survey instrument included measures related to online advertising skepticism
(Obermiller and Spangenberg 1998), social media self-efficacy (Chen et al. 2001), information
seeking behavior (Raju, 1980), brand consciousness (Donthu and Gilliland 1996; Shim and Gehrt
1996), the perceived utility of daily-deal sites (Davis et al. 1989), the perceived ease of use of
daily-deal sites (Davis et al. 1989), attitude toward the act of using daily-deal sites (Shimp and
Kavas 1989), and behavioral intent for using daily-deal sites (Bauer et al. 2005).
Results
The scale items were summed and averaged to form scales. All of the composite scales
achieved very good reliability. Pearson Correlations revealed significant, positive relationships
between the key variables. Online Advertising Skepticism was significantly, negatively
correlated with all other variables. Table 1 shows the correlations among the key variables.
3
Running Head: Deal Me In! Assessing Consumer Response to Daily-Deal Sites
A structural equation model was developed using Amos 18 statistical software to test the
hypothesized relationships among the variables. Contrary to expectations, the structural equation
model demonstrated poor fit. Although the CFI (Comparative Fit Index) was .96, close to the
optimal 1.0 (Gerbing and Anderson 1993); the X²/df was 10.01 when it should be less than 3.0
(Carmines and McIver 1981); and the RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) was
.13, well above the acceptable .05 (MacCallum, Browne and Sugawara 1996) (See Table 2). The
modification indices indicated that the model fit could be significantly improved by adding a
new path between the PEOU and BI variables.
The model was modified by adding a direct path between the PEOU and BI variables.
The addition of the path indicated that, contrary to the TAM theory, the effect of Perceived Ease
of Use on Behavioral Intent was not mediated by Perceived Usefulness and Attitude toward the
Act. The new model demonstrated good fit (See Figure 2). The X²/df was 2.10, less than the 3.0
upper limit; the RMSEA was an acceptable .05; and the CFI was equal to 1.0. The model fit
confirmed the proposed pattern regarding how the external variables related to the TAM
variables. Table 3 provides the parameter estimates, standard errors, and p-values for each of the
relationships. Hypotheses 1 through 4 were supported in terms of sign and statistical
significance. The path between Attitude toward the Act and Behavioral intent was not
significant. This result was not consistent with the TAM framework and failed to support
hypothesis 5. In terms of the external variables, the results confirm hypotheses 6 through 9.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the use of daily-deal sites within the framework
of TAM. While the hypothesized model was not a good fit within this sample, a modified version
of the model provided interesting insights into consumer response to daily-deal sites. First,
4
Running Head: Deal Me In! Assessing Consumer Response to Daily-Deal Sites
attitude toward the usage of daily-deal sites did not determine behavioral intention to engage
with daily-deal sites. Contrary to the theoretical framework proposed, it appears that usage of
daily-deal sites is determined more so by perceptions of the usefulness and ease of use than by
attitude toward the act of using daily-deal sites. Consumers appear to be more appreciative of
utility in this case rather than relying on their attitudes. With regard to perceived usefulness and
perceived ease of use, this research indicates that an individual consumer who perceives the
daily-deal sites to be useful will also perceive them to be easy to use and, in turn, will intend to
use the sites to obtain special offers in their area.
The relationships between external variables and perceived usefulness and perceived ease
of use indicate that daily-deal sites address some of the risks posed by traditional coupon
promotions. For example, brand consciousness did not have a significant effect on the perceived
usefulness of daily-deal sites. Information-seeking behavior significantly affected perceptions of
daily-deal sites’ usefulness, indicating that users of daily-deal sites are interested in non-routine
purchases. Consumers’ skepticism regarding online advertising negatively affected perceptions
of daily-deal sites’ usefulness. Since the study also indicated that usefulness instigated the
process of engaging with brands via daily-deal sites, it is imperative for advertisers to promote
their brand’s “daily deal” as both useful and trustworthy to reduce skepticism. As shown here,
consumers who feel confident in their abilities to effectively use social media also believe that
daily-deal sites will be useful to them.
In totality, these results indicate that, when employing daily-deal sites as part of an
integrated marketing strategy, marketers should focus on ease of use and ease of redemption.
Offers should not only be attractive in terms of value. They must be simple to understand and
simple to implement as well as cross-marketed with other social media sites.
5
Running Head: Deal Me In! Assessing Consumer Response to Daily-Deal Sites
References
Bandura, Albert (1982), "Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency," American Psychologist,
37 (2), 122-147.
BrandSpark International (2010), "2010 BrandSpark American Shopper Study - Topline
Summary," Toronto, Canada, available at http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/topconsumer-trends-revealed-in-third-annual-brandspark-and-better-homes-and-gardens-americanshopper-study-116162934.html (accessed May 20, 2012).
Carmines, E.G. and J.P. (1981), "Analyzing Models with Unobserved Variables," in Social
Measurement: Current Issues, G.W. Bohrnstedt and E.F. Borgatta, eds., Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage, 65-115.
Chen, Gilad, Stanley M. Gully and Dov Eden (2001), "Validation of a New General SelfEfficacy Scale," Organizational Research Methods, 4 (62), 62-83.
Compeau, Deborah R. and Christopher A. Higgins "Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a
Measure and Initial Test," MIS Quarterly, 19 (2), 189-211.
Davis, Fred D., Richard P. Bagozzi and Paul R. Warshaw (1989), "User Acceptance of
Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science, 35
(8), 982-1003.
Deloitte (2010), "The 2010 American Pantry Study: The New Rules of the Shopping Game,"
New York, NY, available at http://www.deloitte.com/us/americanpantrystudy# (accessed May
11, 2012).
Dickinger, Astrid and Mirella Kleijnen (2008), "Coupons going wireless: Determinants of
consumer intentions to redeem mobile coupons," Journal of Interactive Marketing (John Wiley
& Sons), 22 (3), 23-39.
Donthu, Naveen and David Gilliland (1996), "Observations: The Infomercial Shopper," Journal
of Advertising Research, 36 (2), 69-77.
Edison Research (2012), "Report on Daily Deals," Columbia, MD, available at
http://www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Edison-Research-Daily-DealsReport-2012.pdf (accessed May 27, 2012).
Experian Marketing Services (2009), "The Coupon Report: Benchmark Data and Analysis for Email Marketers," Shaumberg, Ill., available at http://www.experian.com/assets/marketingservices/white-papers/EMS_coupon_report_WP.pdf (accessed May 16, 2012).
Gerbing, D. W. and J. C. Anderson (1993), "Monte Carlo evaluations of goodness-of-fit indices
for structural equation models," in Testing structural equation models, K. A. Bollen and J. S.
Long, eds., Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 40-65.
6
Running Head: Deal Me In! Assessing Consumer Response to Daily-Deal Sites
IBISWorld (2012), "Daily Deals Sites in the US: Market Research Report," Santa Monica, CA,
available at http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/daily-deals-sites.html (accessed May 26, 2012).
Kang, Hyunmo, Minhi Hahn, David R. Fortin, Yong J. Hyun and Yunni Eom (2006), "Effects of
perceived behavioral control on the consumer usage intention of e-coupons," Psychology &
Marketing, 23 (10), 841-864.
MacCallum, Robert C., Michael W. Browne and Hazuki M. Sugawara (1996), "Power Analysis
and Determination of Sample Size for Covariance Structure Modeling," Psychological Methods,
1 (2), 130-149.
Neff, Jack "What Groupon means for Grandma's coupons," Advertising Age, 82 (13), 6-6.
Neslin, Scott A. (1990), "A Market Response Model for Coupon Promotions," Marketing
Science, 9 (2), 125-145.
Neslin, Scott A. and Darral G. Clarke (1987), "Relating the Brand Use Profile of Coupon
Redeemers to Brand and Coupon Characteristics," Journal of Advertising Research, 27 (1), 2332.
Raice, Shayndi (2011), "Get 'Em While They Last: 'Daily Deal' Sites Dying Fast " The Wall
Street Journal, available at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904491704576575233025971542.html?
KEYWORDS=daily+deal (accessed May 25, 2012).
Raju, P. S. (1980), "Optimum Stimulation Level: Its Relationship to Personality, Demographics,
and Exploratory Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (December), 272-282.
Schiffman, Leon G., Stephanie Schus and Leon Winer (1976), "Risk Perception as A
Determinant of In-Home Consumption," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 4 (4),
753-763.
Schonfeld, Erik (2012), "LivingSocial Now At 5,000 Employees, Half The Size Of Groupon,"
TechCrunch.com, available at http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/27/livingsocial-5000-employees/
(accessed May 25, 2012).
Sproles, George B. and Elizabeth L. Kendall (1986), "A Methodology for Profiling Consumers'
Decision-Making Styles," The Journal of Consumer Affairs 20 (2), 267-279.
U.S. Census Bureau "U.S. Census 2010," United States of America Internet Usage and
Broadband Usage Report, available at http://www.internetworldstats.com/am/us.htm (accessed
May 22, 2012).
Weiss, Bari (2010), "Groupon's $6 Billion Gambler," The Wall Street Journal, available at
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704828104576021481410635432lMyQjAxMTAwMDEwODExNDgyWj.html (accessed May 25, 2012).
7
Running Head: Deal Me In! Assessing Consumer Response to Daily-Deal Sites
Ying, Wang and Sun Shaojing "Modeling Online Advertising: A Cross-Cultural Comparison
between China and Romania," Journal of Marketing Communications, 16 (5), 271-285.
Tables and Figures
Table 1
Pearson Correlations between Key Variables (N = 502)
Scales
1
1. Brand
Consciousness
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1.00
2. Online Adv.
Skepticism
-.70**
1.00
3. Info-Seeking
.65**
-.68**
1.00
4. Social Media
Self-Efficacy
.50**
-.56**
.64**
1.00
5. Perceived
Usefulness
.48**
-.51**
.58**
.67**
1.00
6. Perceived Ease of
Use
.39**
-.44**
.52**
.70**
.83**
1.00
7. Attitude toward
the Act
.17**
-.22**
.25**
.37**
.50**
.53**
1.00
8. Behavioral Intent
.41**
-.44**
.55**
.66**
.84**
.84**
.50**
1.00
**p < .01
Table 2
Parameter Estimates for Structural Model
Paths
Self-Efficacy → PEOU
PEOU → PU
Info-Seek → PU
Ad Skep → PU
Brand Con → PU
PU → Att_Act
PEOU → Att_Act
PU → BI
Att_Act → BI
Estimate
S.E.
Std. Est.
Sig (p)
.79
.66
.13
-.08
.06
.20
.33
.84
.12
.04
.02
.04
.04
.03
.07
.06
.03
.03
.70
.72
.12
-.08
.06
.20
.36
.78
.11
.001
.001
.001
.05
N.S.
.01
.001
.001
.001
8
Running Head: Deal Me In! Assessing Consumer Response to Daily-Deal Sites
Table 3
Parameter Estimates for Structural Model
Paths
Self-Efficacy → PEOU
Info-Seek → PU
Ad Skep → PU
PEOU → PU
Brand Con → PU
PU → Att_Act
PEOU → Att_Act
PU → BI
PEOU → BI
Att_Act → BI
Estimate
S.E.
Std. Est.
Sig (p)
.79
.13
-.08
.66
.06
.20
.33
.43
.43
.05
.04
.04
.04
.02
.03
.07
.06
.04
.03
.04
.70
.12
-.08
.72
.06
.20
.36
.46
.43
.04
.001
.001
.05
.001
N.S.
.01
.001
.001
.001
N.S.
Figure 1
Research Model
9
Running Head: Deal Me In! Assessing Consumer Response to Daily-Deal Sites
Figure 2
Modified Model
10