SAMPLE ACCEPTANCE RATES AND GENDER BIAS:
AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
Stacia Wert-Gray, University of Central Oklahoma
Geoff Willis, University of Central Oklahoma
ABSTRACT
This study examines the tendency of people to accept an offer of a free sample. Three hundred persons were offered
a sample with manipulated factors of sample delivery method and sample administrator gender. The data suggest
that consumer acceptance rates are affected by both the manner in which the sample is distributed and the gender of
the person offering the sample. Consumers that are approached by the sample administrator are more likely to
accept the offer than if they must approach the administrator. Males are more likely to accept a sample than
females, and are more likely to do so when a female administers the sample.
INTRODUCTION
Current marketing literature agrees that product sampling is a powerful marketing tool.
Sales promotions can be just the ticket for boosting sales (Fishman 1997). Retailers are spending less on advertising
and more on promotion (Chain Store Age 1998) Consumer sales promotions commonly utilized include coupons,
samples, contests, specialty items, and rebates.
A growing number of manufacturers are sampling both new and established products (Target Marketing 1997).
Samples can be distributed within the product package, in store, through the mail, or more recently on-line. On-line
samples have also been successfully utilized to drive website traffic (Beeler 2000)
Samples are effective because they allow the consumer to judge product quality prior to purchase. Unlike
advertising or personal selling which tells consumers that a product is great, samples allow the consumers to try it
firsthand and decide for themselves. When you have a good product, nothing will sell it as well as putting it
directly into the hands of your prospect (Rieck 2000). Samples are also effective in generating trial from consumers
who may already be brand loyal to a competitor. Research has shown that 43% of shoppers indicate that they would
switch brands if they liked a free sample. (Chain Store Age 1998)
Consumers have definite preferences in how they would like samples to be made available to them. Direct mail is
the preferred source of product samples (Chain Store Age 1998). A Donnelley Marketing Inc. survey finds that
consumers prefer to get sample in the mail (71%), but manufactures report that in-store samples are the most
frequently used. (Direct Marketing 1995). One study examined preferences for sample delivery by gender. Target
Marketing & Research in Huntinaton, NY surveyed over 2,000 respondents regarding product samples. Women
said that they would be more receptive to samples delivered by mail than by hand. Men in were more open to handdelivered samples (Hummert 1997).
This study examines the tendency of people to accept an offer of a free sample. It is an exploratory study to
determine if the genders differ in their tendency to accept a sample. The study also explored if subjects were more
or less likely to accept a free sample when the gender of the person offering the sample was varied.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The study was conducted during the first week of the fall semester at a major regional university. University
students, visitors, and employees were offered a free popsicle as they walked past an information booth. It was an
extremely hot day with temperatures in over 100 degrees. Three variations of the offer were presented:
1. An administrator asked respondents if they wanted a free popsicle as they walked past the information
booth. If they elected to receive the free sample, they had to walk off the sidewalk to the booth
(approximately 8 feet) to pick up the Popsicle off a table. There were both of male and female
administrators present at the booth throughout this phase of the investigation.
1
2.
3.
A male administrator who was standing on the sidewalk with a box of Popsicles in hand asked respondents
if they wanted a free Popsicle.
A female administrator who was standing on the sidewalk with a box of Popsicles in hand asked
respondents if they wanted a free Popsicle.
DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
A chi-square goodness of fit analysis was utilized to determine if there was a difference in free sample acceptance
based on gender. Tables 1, 1a, 2, 3, 4, and 5 report the observations and chi-square results.
TABLE 1
GROUP 1: RESPONDENTS MUST APPROACH THE SAMPLE TABLE
TO RECEIVE THE SAMPLE
Accept
Reject
Total
Actual Observations
Male
Female
30
23
17
28
47
51
Total
53
45
98
Percentage
Male
Female
63.8%
45.1%
36.2%
54.9%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
54.1%
45.9%
100.0%
Chi-square = 3.455, df = 1
p = 0.063
TABLE 1A
GROUP 1A: RESPONDENT APPROACHES THE TABLE VS.
RESPONDENT IS HANDED THE SAMPLE
Accept
Reject
Total
Actual Observations
Approach
Handed
53
145
45
62
98
207
Total
198
107
305
Percentages
Approach
Handed
54.1%
70.0%
45.9%
30.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
64.9%
35.1%
100.0%
Chi-square = 7.447, df = 1
p = 0.006
TABLE 2
GROUP 2: A MALE ADMINISTRATOR DIRECTLY HANDS
RESPONDENTS A SAMPLE
Accept
Reject
Total
Actual Observations
Male
Female
23
39
8
18
31
57
Total
62
26
88
Chi-square = .322, df = 1
p = 0.521
2
Percentages
Male
Female
74.2%
68.4%
25.8%
31.6%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
70.5%
29.5%
100.0%
TABLE 3
GROUP 3: A FEMALE ADMINISTRATOR DIRECTLY HANDS
RESPONDENTS A SAMPLE
Accept
Reject
Total
Actual Observations
Male
Female
32
51
7
29
39
80
Total
83
36
119
Percentages
Male
Female
82.1%
63.8%
17.9%
36.3%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
69.7%
30.3%
100.0%
Chi-square = 4.162, df = 1
p = 0.041
TABLE 4
GROUP 4: MALE VS FEMALE ACCEPTANCE
Accept
Reject
Total
Actual Observations
Male
Female
85
113
32
75
117
188
Total
198
107
305
Percentages
Male
Female
72.6%
60.1%
27.4%
39.9%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
64.9%
35.1%
100.0%
Chi-square = 4.982, df = 1
p = 0.026
TABLE 5
GROUP 5: OPPOSITE SEX VS SAME SEX ACCEPTANCE
Accept
Reject
Total
Actual Observations
Opposite
Same
71
74
25
37
96
111
Total
145
62
207
Percentages
Opposite
Same
74.0%
66.7%
26.0%
33.3%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
70.0%
30.0%
100.0%
Chi-square = 1.305, df = 1
p = 0.253
The research shows that respondents (both male and female) were more inclined to accept a free sample when it was
handed directly to them as opposed to the respondents approaching a sample table. Group three resulted in a
significant difference in sample acceptance between the two genders. Men were much more likely than women to
accept a free sample when a female administrator directly handed it to them. Group 4 shows that males are more
likely to take a free Popsicle than women, regardless of which gender is distributing them and how it is distributed.
Group 5 reveals that an "opposite sex" effect is not significant for a combined male and female respondent category.
RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS
The observations discussed within this paper suggest that consumer acceptance rates can be affected by the manner
in which the sample is distributed. If consumers are approached by the sample administrator, they are more likely to
accept the offer than if they must approach a table. Gender of the person administering the sample may also impact
acceptance rates. These findings suggest the need to further explore sample acceptance rates. Product managers
could find these results to be helpful when planning consumer sales promotions.
3
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
This study should be viewed strictly as exploratory. But it does suggest that the manner in which a sample is
distributed can influence the sample acceptance rate. Furthermore, the gender of the person administering the
sample appears to influence acceptance rates. Further research is needed to confirm these observations.
REFERENCES
Beeler, Amanda (2000), “Package-goods markers tune in free-sample sites,” Advertising Age, vol. 71, issue 25, pp.
58-9.
“Coupon Usage Remains Up, Donnelley Survey Reports” (1995), Direct Marketing, vol. 58, issue 5, p8.
Fishman, Alan (1997), “Sales promotions easy way to plug business,” Denver Business Journal, vol. 49, issue 3, p.
28a.
Mummert, Hallie (1997), “P.S.,” Target Marketing, 20 (September), 79.
“New survey details promotional Practices,” (1998), Chain Store Age, vol.74, issue 11, p. 67.
Rieck, Dean (2000), “The ‘cedar plank salmon’ secret of selling,” Direct Marketing, 63 (May), pp. 22-25.
“Short takes,” (1997), Target Marketing, vol. 20, issue 1, pp.20-1.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Stacia Wert-Gray is an associate professor of marketing and department chair at the University of Central
Oklahoma. She has published in Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Central Business Review,
Great Ideas for Teaching Marketing, Journal of Marketing Education, Communication Studies, and others. She has
presented numerous papers at regional and national conferences.
Geoff Willis is an assistant professor of operations management in the department of information systems and
operations management at the University of Central Oklahoma. He has published in Journal of Operations
Management, International Journal of Production Research, Quality Engineering, and others. He has presented
several papers at regional and national conferences.
4