Effective Promotions for Membership.discount vs. Bonus

8/17/2019 Effective Promotions for Membership.discount vs. Bonus

1/10

Effective promotions for membership subscriptions and renewals

to tourist attractions: Discount vs. bonus

Jaemun Byun 1, SooCheong (Shawn) Jang*

School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Purdue University, Marriott Hall, 900 W. State Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

h i g h l i g h t s

We investigated the effective promotions for tourist attraction membership.

Bonus was more effective than discount for new membership subscriptions.

Tourists who had previously renewed memberships did not distinguish between discount and bonus for renewal promotions.

Tourists who had never renewed memberships preferred bonus at hedonic attractions but discount at utilitarian attractions.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 15 September 2014

Accepted 4 February 2015

Available online 24 February 2015

Keywords:

Tourist attraction

Membership

SubscriptionRenewal

Promotion

Discount

Bonus

a b s t r a c t

Tourist attractions actively promote membership subscriptions and renewals. Although discount pro-

motions are commonly utilized in practice, the literature review suggested that bonus promotions, such

as an “extra three months,” could be more effective. Two experiments were conducted to identify

effective promotions for membership subscriptions and renewals. Bonus promotions were found to be

more effective than discount promotions at generating more positive tourist attitudes and behavioral

intentions toward new subscriptions. In contrast, neither bonus nor discount renewal promotions were

more effective for tourists who had previously renewed membership. However, tourists who had never

renewed memberships to utilitarian attractions, such as botanic gardens, preferred discount promotions,

whereas tourists who had never renewed membership to hedonic attractions, such as theme parks,

preferred bonus promotions. This implies that attraction managers should offer tailored promotions to

encourage membership subscriptions and renewals.

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Tourist attractions, such as theme parks, museums, botanic

gardens, and aquariums, are one of the most crucial businesses in

tourism (Leask, 2010; Swarbrooke, 2001). There were more than

400 theme parks and similar attractions in the United States withapproximately 290 million annual visitors in 2010 (International

Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions, 2012). Even

though each tourist attraction provides diverse services ranging

from entertainment, food, and beverages to hotels, shopping, and

education, admission fees are their single largest source of income.

In fact, admission fees account for approximately half of tourist

attractions' total revenues (Milman & Kaak, 2013).

Admission fees are generally collected in two forms: tickets and

membership. A ticket allows a visitor to access the attraction a

certain number of times, commonly once, whereas a membership

allows unlimited access during a certain period of time, usually ayear. Even though most tourist attractions utilize both forms, the

price of an annual membership is generally only 3e7 times more

expensive than that of a daily ticket. This can thus add up to a huge

discount considering the number of possible admissions.

Membership plays an important role for tourist attractions. It

promotes more frequent visits by members and, accordingly,

contributes to cross-sales by restaurants and retail shops. Mem-

bership also helps tourist attractions optimize the number of daily

visitors, which allows facilities (e.g., rides or shows) to ef ciently

operate and manage staf ng. Financial stability can also be* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 765 496 3610; fax: þ1 765 494 0327.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Byun), [email protected] (S. Jang).1 Tel.: þ 1 765 631 4093.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m/ l o c a t e / t o u r m a n

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.02.002

0261-5177/©

2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Tourism Management 50 (2015) 194e203

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02615177http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tourmanhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.02.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.02.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.02.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.02.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.02.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.02.002http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tourmanhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02615177http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.tourman.2015.02.002&domain=pdfmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/10

strengthened by collecting membership fees upfront. In sum, suc-

cessfully managing membership is benecial for tourist attractions.

Tourist attractions actively promote both membership sub-

scriptions and renewals. They often provide additional benets for

members, such as free parking, designated entrances, or free

magazines. Further, membership fee discount promotions are

commonly witnessed at many tourist attractions. For example, Six

Flags offered a New Year's promotion with a 46% discount on its

season passes (Six Flags Magic Mountain, 2014). Likewise, Walt

Disney World provided a 15% discount for annual pass renewals,

Universal Studios Hollywood offered an 11% discount, and LEGO

Land offered a 25% discount (from LEGO Land, 2014; Universal

Studios Hollywood, 2014; Walt Disney World, 2014).

While discount promotions are popular with tourist attractions,

bonus promotions, such as an “extra free three months,” are also

commonly utilized in other industries, such as cable TV, Internet

services, rental businesses, magazines and newspapers. Further,

among tourist attractions, SeaWorld started to offer a bonus pro-

motion for its annual pass e “Buy 1 Year and Get the 2 nd Year

Free!” (SeaWorld, 2014). The attractiveness of discount and bonus

promotions might appear similar when the associated benets and

costs are the same. For example, a 10% price discount promotion

seems more or less similar to a 10% quantity bonus promotion interms of savings and costs. However, the extant research in mar-

keting indicates that the effectiveness of such promotions can differ

based on product type and customer characteristics (e.g., Diamond,

1992; Diamond & Campbell, 1989; Hardesty & Bearden, 2003;

Kamins, Folkes, & Fedorikhin, 2009; Mishra & Mishra, 2011).

There is little empirical evidence on the effectiveness of dis-

count promotions, which have conventionally been used by tourist

attractions. In general, there are few studies on marketing or pro-

motions for tourist attractions (Leask, 2010). This study intends to

ll this gap by investigating the effectiveness of membership fee

discount promotions on customers' attitudes and behavioral in-

tentions in comparison with extra membership period bonus pro-

motions. This study will help tourist attractions to identify

appropriate promotions to attract new visitors and maintain cur-rent members. Managers of tourist attractions can offer tailored

promotions for their visitors and members.

To achieve these objectives, this study rst reviewed the liter-

ature to identify diverse factors that might inuence customers'

preferences between the two types of promotions (i.e., discount and

bonus). Then, hypotheses on effective promotions for tourist at-

tractions were developed by applying the above factors to both

membership subscriptions and renewals. Two experimental de-

signs employing the survey method, one examining new member

subscriptions and the other focusing on renewals, were used to test

the hypotheses. Finally, the results of the ANOVA analysis and the

implications were discussed.

2. Literature review

Prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979, 1984; Tversky &

Kahneman, 1992) is the theoretical foundation for the argument

that bonus promotions are preferred over discount promotions

(e.g., Chandran & Morwitz, 2006; Diamond, 1992; Diamond &

Sanyal, 1990). Prospect theory describes decision making under

risks and indicates that choosing between risky alternatives is

inuenced by how the choices are framed. The option framed as a

gain is perceived as better than an alternative framed as reduced

losses (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979, 1984; Tversky & Kahneman,

1992). Prospect theory has been widely conrmed in diverse situ-

ations (Diamond & Sanyal, 1990; Thaler, 1985). On the other hand,

researchers have also argued that customers' preferences toward

discount or bonus promotions can be affected by other factors, such

as product stack-ability or customers' familiarity with the product

(e.g., Hardesty & Bearden, 2003; Mishra & Mishra, 2011; Ong, Ho, &

Tripp, 1997; Smith & Sinha, 200 0). Thus, some customers may

prefer discount promotions rather than bonus promotions.

Section 2.1 below investigates diverse factors that inuence

customers' preferences between discount and bonus promotions.

Then, these factors are applied to identify effective promotions for

membership subscriptions and renewals in Section 2.2.

2.1. Preferences between discount and bonus promotions

Customers generally prefer bonus promotions rather than dis-

count promotions. First, Diamond and Sanyal (1990) claimed that

bonus promotions are preferred based on prospect theory

(Kahneman & Tversky, 1979, 1984; Tversky & Kahneman, 1992)

because customers tend to consider a quantity bonus as an extra

gain but a price discount as reduced losses (refer to Diamond, 1992

as well). Second, Chandran and Morwitz (2006) argued that bonus

promotions are preferred because a quantity bonus is viewed as

free from negative contextual information such as quality issues.

Their experiment showed that “free shipping” yields signicantly

higher purchase intentions for used books than price discount

promotions, even when both offers amount to the same economic

benets (Chandran & Morwitz, 2006). Lastly, Chen, Marmorstein,

Tsiros, and Rao (2012) argued that bonus promotions are

preferred because customers do not pay much attention to the base

value of a product or service and, consequently, prefer the nomi-

nally higher percentage of the bonus promotion rather than the

lower percentage of the economically equivalent price discount

promotion. For example, a 50% bonus promotion was considered as

superior to a 35% price discount promotion even though they were

similar in terms of dollar per unit value (i.e., [email protected] for bonus vs.

[email protected] for discount) (Chen et al., 2012).

However, researchers have also identied several circumstances

where customers' preferences can be moderated in favor of dis-

count promotions. The ndings on these moderators are summa-

rized in Table 1. First, Smith and Sinha (2000) found that customersprefer price discounts for expensive products but bonus pro-

motions for inexpensive products (refer to Chen et al., 2012 as well).

For example, when the price is high, a 33% off promotion is

signicantly preferred over a 33% more promotion (Chen et al.,

2012). Second, Smith and Sinha (2000) also claimed that price

discounts are generally preferred for non-stackable goods, such as

perishables. For example, their experiment (Smith & Sinha, 2000)

found that a discount promotion is more effective for bread and

cheese than bath tissue and detergent. Third, Mishra and Mishra

(2011) found that a price discount is more effective for vice foods,

such as chocolate chip cookies, while a bonus pack is more effective

Table 1Moderators on preference toward bonus vs. discount promotion.

Category Moderator Preference toward

promotionType Level/Condition

Product Price High Discount

Low Bonus

Stack-ability High Bonus

Low Discount

Guilty Feeling Vice Goods Discount

Virtue Goods Bonus

Customer Familiarity with

products and services

High Bonus/Indifferent

Low Discount

Usage Frequency High Bonus

Low Discount

Promotion Size of Promotion Large Discount

Small Bonus/Indifferent

J. Byun, S. Jang / Tourism Management 50 (2015) 194e 203 195


3/10

for virtue foods, such as fruit salad. To explain this phenomenon,

they argued that a discount promotion makes it easier for cus-

tomers to justify the consumption of vice goods by alleviating

associated feelings of guilt. In contrast, consumers are willing to

consume more virtue goods with a bonus promotion because it is

considered an extra benet with no associated psychological con-

ict or guilt (Mishra & Mishra, 2011). Fourth, Chen et al. (2012)

found that customers prefer discount promotions for unfamiliar

products whereas they are indifferent regarding the type of pro-

motion for familiar products. In their experiment (Chen et al.,

2012), participants showed greater preferences toward discount

promotions rather than bonus promotions for new coffee brands.

Yet, they did not distinguish between the two types of promotions

for familiar coffee brands. Fifth, Ong et al. (1997) claimed that usage

frequency acts as a moderator. Light users prefer discount pro-

motions, while heavy users prefer bonus promotions. In their

experiment, light users showed stronger preferences toward dis-

counted lotion than extra free lotion, compared with heavy users

(Ong et al., 1997). Lastly, Hardesty and Bearden (2003) argued that

customers prefer discount promotions when the size of the pro-

motion is large. For instance, when a promotion level is high (e.g.,

50%) customers evaluate a price discount more favorably than a

quantity bonus, whereas they tend to be indifferent when a pro-motion levels is moderate (e.g., 25%) (Hardesty & Bearden, 2003).

2.2. Tourist attractions and promotion preferences

Even though tourist attractions are dened slightly differently

by various researchers (Hede & Hall, 2006; Hu & Wall, 2005; Leask,

2010; Pearce,1991), it is generally acceptedthat they include theme

parks or amusement parks, museums and galleries, natural land-

scapes, heritage sites, religious sites, cultural and industrial visitor

centers, and animal facilities (Leask, 2010). Most tourist attractions

are regarded as services for hedonic consumption (Milman, 2001)

and utilize similar business models and marketing strategies as

commercial products and services. By analyzing whether the

moderators in Table 1 can be applied to membership promotions

for tourist attractions, this study developed the following

hypotheses.

There appear to be no moderators that favor discount pro-

motions for new membership subscriptions, as summarized in

Table 2. (1) Even though the absolute price of the membership may

be expensive, the relative price compared with a daily ticket would

still be considered moderate or inexpensive. For example, although

the price of Walt Disney World's annual pass is around $630, it is

only around 2.3 times more expensive than a 3-day ticket and 6.4

times more expensive than a daily ticket (Walt Disney World, 2014).

It is likely that tourists who consider a membership will recognize

that the price per visit is much less expensive than a daily pass and

therefore prefer a bonus promotion. (2) The high stack-ability of

membership works in favor of bonus promotions as well. (3)

Tourists are not likely to feel guilty because the feeling of guilt

which results from violating one's own moral and internal stan-

dards, such as wasting time or money, will not occur ( Burnett &

Lunsford, 1994). Rather, members may feel guiltless because they

can spend more time with their family (Burnett & Lunsford, 1994),

which usually serves as the main ‘guest unit’ for tourist attractions

(Milman, 2001). However, it is still possible that members of

extremely hedonic tourist attractions, such as theme parks with

extreme rides, might feel guilty because hedonic consumption is

commonly associated with guilt (Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000). Thus,

this paper classied tourist attractions into relatively hedonic and

utilitarian tourist attractions to conrm the moderating effect of

guilt. (4) It is reasonable to assume that individuals who consider

purchasing a membership are familiar with a tourist attraction

enough to prefera bonus promotion or not distinguish between the

two promotions. (5) It would be reasonable to assume that in-

dividuals considering a membership expect to visit the attraction

frequently enough to prefer a bonus promotion. Otherwise, they

would not subscribe to a membership. (6) Membership promotions

for tourist attractions generally range from 10% to 25% bonus or

discount, which is a small or moderate size. This suggests thattourists would prefer a bonus promotion (Hardesty & Bearden,

2003). In sum, almost all of the moderators indicate that tourists

would show positive attitudes toward bonus promotions. Greater

positive attitudes toward bonus promotions are expected to lead to

stronger subscription intentions and recommendation intentions

(Ajzen, 1985). Therefore, the following specic hypotheses are

proposed:

H1. Bonus promotions are more effective than discount promotions

in inducing positive attitudes (H 1-1), subscriptions intentions (H 1-2)

and recommendation intentions (H 1-3) for new membership sub-

scriptions to tourist attractions; whereas

H2. discount promotions are more effective than bonus promotions

in inducing positive attitudes (H 2-1), subscriptions intentions (H 2-2)and recommendation intentions (H 2-3) for extremely hedonic tourist

attractions.

In the case of membership renewal promotions, usage fre-

quency would act as a moderator in favor of discount promotions

for tourists who realize they visit infrequently. The other conditions

of the moderators remain more or less unchanged, as summarized

in Table 2. (1) Annual or seasonal membership prices are not ex-

pected to change much, although economic or strategic conditions

might require a slight price increase or decrease. Thus, there is no

reason to assume preferences toward a bonus promotion will

change. (2) The high stack-ability of memberships will continue to

work in favor of bonus promotions as well. (3) It is unlikely that

Table 2

Rationales for hypotheses development.

No. Potential

Moderator

Membership promotion

New subscription Renewal

Level of Moderator Preference toward promotion Level of Moderator Preference toward promotion

(1) Price (Relatively) Low Bonus (Relatively) Low Bonus

(2) Stack-ability Very High Bonus Very High Bonus

(3) Guilty Feeling Low Bonus Low Bonus

Can be high in extremely

hedonic tourist attractions

Discount Can be high in extremely

hedonic tourist attractions

Discount

(4) Familiarity Moderate or High Bonus/Indifferent High Bonus/Indifferent

( 5) Expec ted Usage

Frequency

High Bonus High or Low Bonus/Discount

(6) Size of Promotion Small or Moderate Bonus/Indifferent Small or Moderate Bonus/Indifferent

J. Byun, S. Jang / Tourism Management 50 (2015) 194e 203196


4/10

tourists would suddenly feel guilty about membership renewals

because they can spend more time with their family without

violating their moral standards (Burnett & Lunsford, 1994). In

contrast, it is likely that members of extremely hedonic tourist

attractions would continue to feel guilty regarding their hedonic

consumption (Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000). (4) Tourists' familiarity

with the tourist attraction would be enhanced and their preference

toward bonus promotions would continue. (5) It is plausible that

some tourists would realize that they do not visit the tourist

attraction as frequently as they originally expected. Indeed, this is

one of the most commonly cited reasons for not purchasing or

renewing tourist attraction membership. For example, for tourists

who visit Walt Disney World no more than 6 days a year it is

economically more reasonable to purchase daily tickets. Therefore,

individuals who realize they infrequently use the membership will

not renew it. Further, they will prefer a membership fee discount

promotion because the extra membership period would not really

matter to them since they would not benet from it. On the other

hand, tourists who use their membership frequently are likely to

renew the membership and continue to prefer a bonus promotion.

(6) The size of most renewal promotions is generally small or

moderate enough for tourists to continue to prefer a bonus pro-

motion. In conclusion, almost all of the moderators continue toencourage tourists to show greater positive attitudes, and conse-

quently stronger renewal and recommendation intentions, toward

bonus promotions. However, usage frequency would act as a

moderator for tourists who choose not to renew a membership due

to infrequent usage. They would show greater positive attitudes

and stronger renewal and recommendation intentions toward

discount promotions. The specic hypotheses are proposed as

follows:

H3. Bonus promotions are more effective than discount promotions

in inducing positive attitudes (H 3-1), renewals intentions (H 3-2) and

recommendation intentions (H 3-3) for membership renewals; whereas

H4. discount promotions are more effective than bonus promotions

in inducing positive attitudes (H 4-1), renewals intentions (H 4-2), andrecommendation intentions (H 4-3) for membership renewals for

tourists who choose not to renew their membership.

H5. Discount promotions are more effective than bonus promotions

in inducing positive attitudes (H 5-1), renewals intentions (H 5-2), and

recommendation intentions (H 5-3) for membership renewals to

extremely hedonic tourist attractions.

3. Methods

This study employedan experiment with a tourist attraction and

promotion between-subject design to analyze new subscription

promotions: Study 1e

2 (attraction: hedonic vs. utilitarian) 2(promotion: discount vs. bonus). The survey questionnaire rst

asked participants to imagine that they were considering sub-

scribing to a membership at either a theme park or a botanic gar-

den. Only respondents who have never subscribed to membership

of tourist attractions were recruited and randomly assigned to one

of the four promotions, as presented in the Appendix: (1) theme

park and discount promotion, (2) theme park and bonus promo-

tion, (3) botanic garden and discount promotion, and (4) botanic

garden and bonus promotion. Then, they answered questions about

their attitudes and behavioral intentions toward the assigned

promotion.

Next, this study employed a three-way ANOVA experiment

including a tourist attraction, renewal experience, and promotion

between-subject design to analyze renewal promotions: Study 2e

2

(attraction: hedonic vs. utilitarian) 2 (renewal: ever vs. never) 2

(promotion: discount vs. bonus). The survey recruited respondents

who have previously subscribed to membership at either a theme

park or botanic garden. The tourist attraction was assigned ac-

cording to participants' previous membership. For example, in-

dividuals who had been a member of a theme park were randomly

assigned to either the discount or bonus promotion for member-

ship renewal at a theme park. They were asked to remember their

experience with a previous membership and imagine that they had

seen the renewal promotion included in the Appendix. Then, they

answered the same questions included in the new subscription

promotion survey. In addition, they were asked whether they had

ever renewed their real membership. A manipulation question was

included to verify whether members of theme parks and botanic

gardens as groups were similar in terms of satisfaction.

Since this study employed random assignment experimental

design, which facilitates causal inference (Shadish, Cook, &

Campbell, 2002), the validity of the experiment is established.

The advertisements as a treatment were designed to reect realistic

and plausible promotions as seen in the Appendix. Further, alter-

native plausible explanations for differences in travelers' attitudes

and behavioral intentions, such as satisfaction with previous ex-

periences at each tourist attraction and the plausibility and credi-bility of the promotions, were also examined. The reliability of the

measures was conrmed with Cronbach's alphas. In addition, the

reliability of the tourist attractions selection (i.e., theme park and

botanic garden) was conrmed with the hedonic/utilitarian attri-

bute manipulation questions.

3.1. Tourist attraction selection

Through a panel discussion including industry experts and

tourism professors, a theme park was selected as a hedonic tourist

attraction, whereas a botanic garden was selected for a utilitarian

tourist attraction. They represent not only hedonic or utilitarian

tourist attractions but also major tourist attractions in terms of

market size and number of visitors (Dong & Siu, 2013; InternationalAssociation of Amusement Parks and Attractions, 2012). Each sur-

vey included manipulation questions regarding the hedonic or

utilitarian attributes of the assigned tourist attraction.

3.2. Promotion design

Two promotional advertisements were created for each tourist

attraction: theme park and botanic garden. The advertisements

differ only in terms of the promotion. A 15% discount rate and two

extra months of bonus were employed. Monthly membership fees

for both promotions are more or less economically equivalent. For

example, when the regular membership fee is $100 a year, the price

per month for discount and bonus promotions is 7.08 (¼$85@12)

and 7.14 ( ¼$100@14), respectively. In addition, it was deliberatelystated that two extra months are equivalent to a 15% price discount

in the bonus promotion advertisement. The percentage term of the

bonus promotion, 16.7% (¼ 2 months/12 months), was not stated to

prevent preferences for a nominally higher percentage (Chen et al.,

2012). The nal promotional advertisements are provided in the

Appendix.

3.3. Data collection

For data collection, two separate nationwide web-based surveys

were conducted by an online research rm. The rst survey was

randomly distributed to its survey panels who had never sub-

scribed to a membership fora tourist attraction in the United States.

Respondents were randomly assigned to one of the four



5/10

promotions. After eliminating unusable responses, 165 out of 186

returned responses were used for analysis. Next, a second survey

was distributed to individuals who have been a member of either a

theme park or a botanic garden in the United States. They were

randomly assigned to one of the discount or bonus promotions for

the tourist attraction they had previously subscribed to. A total of

222 responses were collected, and after eliminating 13 unusable

responses 209 responses were used for analysis.

3.4. Variables and measures

The questionnaire for the new subscription promotion survey

consisted of three sections. The rst section assessed attitudes and

behavioral intentions. To assess attitudes toward the promotion,

the most frequently cited 8-item, 7-point Likert bipolar scales (e.g.,

bad/good, dislike/like, negative/positive, unfavorable/favorable,

unpleasant/pleasant, undesirable/desirable, awful/nice, and inef-

fective/effective) were employed. Next, behavioral intentions were

assessed based on subscription intentions and willingness to

recommend. Frequently cited scales were adopted with modica-

tions for the current experiment setting. Subscription intentions

were measured by four statements on a 7-point Likert scale: “I

would like/am willing to subscribe to an annual pass (or mem-bership),” “If everything goes as I think, I plan to subscribe to an

annual pass in the future,” and “I will make an effort to subscribe to

an annual pass.” Recommendation intentions were measured by

the following two statements: “I would like to recommend sub-

scribing to an annual pass to others” and “I would like to spread

positive things about this subscription policy to others.”

The second section included several questions to conrm the

manipulation and identify potential moderators. First, the hedonic/

utilitarian attributes of theme parks and botanic gardens were each

measured with 6 item, 7-point Likert scales (e.g., pleasant, exciting,

and fun for hedonic attributes vs. practical, useful, and valuable for

utilitarian attributes). The scales were adopted from a previous

study on the hedonic and utilitarian meanings of tourism attrac-

tions by Snepenger, Murphy, Snepenger, and Anderson (2004).Second, guilt as a potential moderator was measured with 3 item,

7-point Likert scales adopted from previous studies (Basil, Ridgway,

& Basil, 2008; Burnett & Lunsford,1994; Mishra & Mishra, 2011): “I

would feel guilty if I subscribed to an annual pass (or member-

ship),” “If I subscribe to an annual pass, I will feel guilty that I might

spend more time there,” and “It will cost me a regretful amount of

money to subscribe to an annual pass.” Finally, participants were

asked to rate the plausibility of the promotions with 3 item, 7-point

Likert scales (Drolet, Williams, & Lau-Gesk, 2007): “This promotion

is believable/realistic/credible.” The last section included questions

about demographic information such as gender, age, race, educa-

tion, and marital status.

The renewal promotion survey included all of the above ques-

tions with some modications for the renewal experiment setting.For instance, the items for renewal intentions were revised as fol-

lows: “I would like to renew the annual pass (or membership).” In

addition, satisfaction with the previous membership experience

was measured with 3 item, 7-point Likert scales (Bigne, Andreu, &

Gnoth, 2005) (e.g., I am satis ed with my decision to subscribe to the

annual pass).

4. Results

4.1. Sample pro les

Table 3 shows the demographic statistics of the participants in

each survey. In the survey on newsubscription promotions,51.5% of

the participants (n¼

85) were male and 48.5% (n¼

80) were female.

The participants were 32 years old on average and the majority was

Caucasian (70.9%). More than half (60.0%) were single, while a

majority of the respondents (82.7%) graduated from at least a 2-year

college. In the survey on membership renewal promotions, 61.7%(n ¼ 129) of participants were male and 38.3% (n ¼ 80) were female,

implying that men tend to subscribe to tourist attraction

membership more than women. The participants were 31 years old

on average and 71.3% were Caucasian. 58.4% were single, and 72.3%

were graduates of a 2-year college or higher.

4.2. Results for new subscription promotions (study 1)

The results of the manipulation analysis were conrmed to be

successful as expected. The hedonic/utilitarian index, which was

computed by subtracting the mean score on the 3-item hedonic

attribute scale (Cronbach's alpha ¼ 0.88) from the mean score of the

3-item utilitarian attribute scale (Cronbach's alpha ¼ 0.92),

conrmed that theme parks and botanic gardens are viewed assignicantly more hedonic and utilitarian, respectively (M Theme

park ¼ 1.56 vs. M Botanic Garden ¼ 0.10, t(163) ¼ 10.71, p < 0.001).

Nonetheless, no signicant differences were conrmed in terms of

feelings of guilt regarding subscriptions to theme parks or botanic

gardens (Cronbach's alpha ¼ 0.77, t(163) ¼ 0.37, p ¼ 0.71). More

importantly both mean scores were low, which (M Theme park ¼ 2.80

and M Botanic Garden ¼ 2.71) conrmed that guilt is not expected to act

as a moderator to encourage a preference toward discount pro-

motions. Lastly, both promotions were viewed as realistic and

credible (Cronbach's alpha ¼ 0.95, M Discount ¼ 5.27 and

M Bonus ¼ 5.55), and no signicant difference was found

(t(163) ¼ 1.50, p ¼ 0.14).

After the manipulation conrmation, the effects of discount and

bonus promotions on tourists' attitudes were examined. The results

Table 3

Sample proles.

Variable New subscription

promotion

Membership renewal

promotion

Frequency

(n ¼ 165)

Percentage

(%)

Frequency

(n ¼ 209)

Percentage

(%)

Gender

Male 85 51.5 129 61.7

Female 80 48.5 80 38.3

Age

19e29 years 90 54.6 121 57.9

30e39 years 50 30.3 56 26.8

40e49 years 11 6.6 19 9.1

50e59 years 8 4.8 10 4.8

Over 60 years 6 3.6 3 1.5

Ethnicity

White/Caucasian 117 70.9 149 71.3

African American 14 8.5 14 6.7

Hispanic 12 7.3 18 8.6

Asian 16 9.7 19 9.1

Native American 2 1.2 2 1.0

Pacic Islander 2 1.2 2 1.0

Other 2 1.2 5 2.4

EducationLess than High School 1 0.6

High School/GED 44 26.7 58 27.8

2-year College 37 22.4 43 20.6

4-year University 68 41.2 96 45.9

Master's or above 15 9.1 12 5.8

Marital Status

Single, never married 99 60.0 122 58.4

Married 53 32.1 78 37.3

Divorced/Separated 13 7.9 9 4.3



6/10

of 2 (attraction: theme park vs. botanic garden) 2 (promotion:

discount vs. bonus) ANOVA on the mean scores of the attitude scales

(Cronbach's alpha ¼ 0.96) yielded a signicant effect only for the

promotion (F(1,161) ¼ 5.82, p < 0.05). As expected, participants

showed greater positive attitudes toward the bonus promotion

than the discount promotion (M Discount ¼ 4.70 vs. M Bonus ¼ 5.17). In

other words, the result conrmed that potential moderators, such

as price and familiarity, favor discount promotions. Therefore, H1-1is supported. Likewise, no interaction effect was conrmed for the

inuence of guilt, even for extremely hedonic tourist attractions.

Therefore, H2-1 is not supported. The statistical details are listed in

Table 4.

Next, the effects of discount and bonus promotions on tourists'behavioral intentions were examined. The result of another ANOVA

on the mean scores of the subscription intention scales (Cronbach's

alpha ¼ 0.97) also yielded a signicant main effect only for the

promotion (F(1,161) ¼ 4.39, p


7/10

(F(1,201) ¼ 8.54, p < 0.01), and a signicant three-way interaction

effect for tourist attraction renewal promotion

(F(1,201) ¼ 6.23, p < 0.05). The contrast analyses presented in

Table 8 reveal that participants who had previously renewed a

membership showed no difference in attitudes between the dis-

count and bonus promotions for the theme park (F(1,201) ¼ 1.64,

p ¼ 0.20) or the botanic garden (F(1,201) ¼ 0.13, p ¼ 0.72). In

contrast, participants who had not previously renewed a mem-

bership showed a signicant difference in attitudes between thetheme park (F(1,201) ¼ 6.30, p < 0.05) and the botanic garden

(F(1,201) ¼ 7.31, p < 0.01). Since we hypothesized greater positive

attitudes toward the bonus promotion among those who renewed

a membership, H3-1 is not supported. However, as expected, those

who had not renewed a membership to a botanic garden showed

greater positive attitudes toward the discount promotion (M Botanic

Garden-Never Renew-Discount ¼ 5 .59 vs. M Botanic Garden-Never Renew-

Bonus ¼ 4.47). On the other hand, those who had not renewed a

membership to a theme park surprisingly showed greater positive

attitudes toward the bonus promotion than the discount promo-

tion (M Theme park-Never Renew-Discount ¼ 5.21 vs. M Theme park-Never Renew-

Bonus ¼ 5.79). Therefore, it is concluded that H4-1 is partially

supported.

Next, the effects of discount and bonus promotions on tour-ists' behavioral intentions were examined. The results of another

ANOVA on the mean scores of the renewal intention scales

(Cronbach's alpha ¼ 0.95) also yielded a signicant main effect for

tourist attraction (F(1,201) ¼ 4.81, p < 0.05) and renewal experi-

ence (F(1,201) ¼ 66.40, p < 0.001), a signicant two-way inter-

action effect for tourist attraction promotion (F(1,201) ¼ 4.03,

p < 0.05), and a signicant three-way interaction effect for tourist

attraction renewal experience promotion (F(1,201) ¼ 7.44,

p < 0.01), as shown in Table 9. The contrast analysis revealed that

participants who had previously renewed a membership showed

no difference in renewal intentions between discount and bonus

promotions for the theme park (F(1,201) ¼ 0.15, p ¼ 0.70) or the

botanic garden (F(1,201) ¼ 0.73, p ¼ 0.39). Therefore, H3-2 is not

supported. Likewise, participants who had never previouslyrenewed a botanic garden membership showed no signicant

difference in renewal intentions (F(1,201) ¼ 1.76, p ¼ 0.18), even

though they showed greater positive renewal intentions toward

the discount promotion (M Botanic Garden-Non Renewal-Discount ¼ 4.31

vs. M Botanic Garden-Non Renewal-Bonus ¼ 3.59). However, individuals

who had never renewed a theme park membership showed

signicantly different renewal intentions (F(1,201) ¼ 16.192,

p < 0.001) and, surprisingly, greater positive renewal intentions

toward the bonus promotion (M Theme park-Non Renewal-Discount ¼ 3.77

vs. M Theme park-Non Renewal-Bonus ¼ 4.99). Therefore, H4-2 is not

supported. The statistical details of the contrast analysis are lis-

ted in Table 10.

Finally, Table 11 shows that the results of the other ANOVA on

the mean scores of the recommendation intention scales (Cron-

bach's alpha ¼ 0.93) are similar to those for renewal intentions.

A signicant three-way interaction effect for tourist

attraction renewal experience promotion (F(1,201) ¼ 3.99, p < 0.05) was again conrmed. The contrast analysis in Table 12

reveals that participants who previously renewed a membership

showed no difference in recommendation intentions between the

discount and bonus promotions for either the theme park

(F(1,201) ¼ 1.66, p ¼ 0.20) or the botanic garden (F(1,201) ¼ 0.04,

p ¼ 0.85). Therefore, H3-3 is not supported. Participants who had

never renewed a membership for a theme park showed signi-

cantly different recommendation intentions (F(1,201) ¼ 11.34,

p < 0.001), whereas botanic garden subscribers had only marginally

different recommendation intentions (F(1,201) ¼ 3.78, p < 0.1). As

expected, participants who had never renewed a botanic garden

membership showed greater positive recommendation intentions

toward the discount promotion (M Botanic Garden-Non Renewal-

Discount ¼ 4.34 vs. M Botanic Garden-Non Renewal-Bonus ¼ 3.19). On the other

Table 9

ANOVA for renewal intention (Study 2 e Renewal Promotion).

Sum of squares df Mean squares F Sig.

Tourist attraction 7.429 1 7.429 4.814 0.029

Renewal 102.486 1 102.486 66.401 0.000

Promotion 2.282 1 2.282 1.479 0.225

Attraction Renewal 0.017 1 0.017 0.011 0.917

Attraction Promotion 6.221 1 6.221 4.031 0.046

Renewal Promotion 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 0.996Attraction Renewal

Promotion

11.486 1 11.486 7.442 0.007

Error 310.233 201 1.543

Total 483.923 208

Table 10

Contrast analysis for renewal intention (Study 2 e Renewal Promotion).

Renewal experience Tourist attraction Promotion F Sig.

Discount Bonus

Ever Theme Park 6.012 6.144 0.147 0.702

Botanic Garden 5.396 5.792 0.731 0.394

Never Theme Park 3.773 4.986 16.192 0.000

Botanic Garden 4.313 3.594 1.785 0.183

Table 11

ANOVA for recommendation intention (Study 2 e Renewal Promotion).

Sum of squares df Mean squares F Sig.

Tourist attraction 6.309 1 6.309 3.346 0.069

Renewal 64.068 1 64.068 33.978 0.000

Promotion 0.143 1 0.143 0.076 0.783

Attraction Renewal 2.258 1 2.258 1.197 0.275

Attraction Promotion 17.601 1 17.601 9.335 0.003

Renewal Promotion 0.232 1 0.232 0.123 0.726Attraction Renewal

Promotion

7.527 1 7.527 3.992 0.047

Error 378.996 201 1.886

Total 481.722 208

Table 12

Contrast analysis for recommendation intention (Study 2 e Renewal Promotion).

Renewal experience Tourist attraction Promotion F Sig.

Discount Bonus

Ever Theme Park 5.302 5.682 1.661 0.199

Botanic Garden 5.375 5.278 0.036 0.850

Never Theme Park 3.864 4.986 11.342 0.001

Botanic Garden 4.344 3.187 3.781 0.053

Table 13

Results of hypothesis tests.

Hypotheses

Number Attitudes

(HX-1)

Behavioral intentions

Subscription/

Renewal (HX-2)

Recommendation

(HX-3)

New

subscription

H1 Support ed Supporte d S uppor ted

H2 Not supported Not supported Not supported

Renewal H3 Not supported Not supported Not supported

H4 Partially

supported

Not supported Partially

supported

H5 Not supported Not supported Not supported


http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


8/10

hand, those who had never renewed a theme park membership

showed greater positive recommendation intentions toward the

bonus promotion (M Theme park-Non Renewal-Discount ¼ 3.86 vs. M Theme

park-Non Renewal-Bonus ¼ 4.99). Therefore, H4-3 is marginally and

partially supported.

5. Conclusion

5.1. Summary and discussion

This study attempted to investigate effective promotions to

encourage membership subscriptions and renewals for tourist at-

tractions. The results of the hypothesis tests are summarized in

Table 13.

The bonus promotion was more effective than the discount

promotion in arousing greater positive attitudes and stronger

behavioral intentions for new membership subscriptions,

whereas individuals who had previously renewed their

membership tended to show no difference in attitudes and

behavioral intentions toward the renewal promotions. On the

other hand, individuals who had never renewed a theme park

membership tended to prefer the bonus promotion, whereas

those who had never renewed a botanic garden membershiptended to prefer the discount promotion. Likewise, individuals

who had never renewed a theme park membership showed

stronger renewal and recommendation intentions toward the

bonus promotion, whereas those who had never renewed a

botanic garden membership showed stronger recommendation

intentions but no difference in renewal intentions. Finally, it was

also conrmed that feelings of guilt do not act as a moderator for

either new subscriptions or renewal promotions. The bonus

promotion was not preferred even for extremely hedonic tourist

attractions.

In the experiment on renewal promotions, individuals who

had previously renewed their membership revealed no signi-

cant difference in attitudes or behavioral intentions between

the discount and bonus promotions. Even though this was nothypothesized in the paper, the result conrmed previous nd-

ings that customers are indifferent regarding the type of pro-

motion for familiar products and services (Chen et al., 2012).

Those who have previously renewed membership would be so

familiar with the tourist attraction that they would not distin-

guish between the promotions as long as they could reap the

benets.

On the other hand, it is interesting that individuals who have

never renewed a membership to either a theme park or a botanic

garden showed different attitudes and behavioral intentions. The

members of botanic gardens preferred the discount promotion as

expected. It seems that they did not use the membership as often

as they initially expected and, consequently, preferred the dis-

count promotion rather than the bonus promotion that theymight not benet from. On the contrary, members of a theme

park preferred the bonus promotion even though they had

already experienced that they might not visit the park as often as

they thought. One possible explanation may be that the hedonic

attributes of the theme park encourage members to feel rather

than think rationally about whether they can visit the park more

often than the previous year and, thus, prefer the bonus

promotion.

5.2. Implications

This study contributes several important and interesting theo-

retical implications. First, this paper conrmed previous ndings

that bonus promotions are generally more effective than discount

promotions. Even though the nominal rates of bonus promotions

are not revealed, participants still prefer it to discount promotions.

Second, it conrmed that the preference toward bonus promotions

over discount promotions for commercial products and services is

applicable to tourist attractions or tourism settings as well. Third,

this paper identied that the preference toward bonus promotions

can change in the case of membership renewals. Specically, dis-

count promotions can be more effective for individuals who do

not intend to renew their memberships to relatively utilitarian

tourist attractions such as botanic gardens. In contrast, bonus

promotions continue to be more effective for individuals who do

notintend to renewtheir memberships to relatively hedonic tourist

attractions such as theme parks and amusement parks. Lastly, this

paper suggested that the effectiveness of a promotion can differ

according to the characteristics of tourist attractions and potential

visitors.

This study also contributes several important practical im-

plications for attraction managers. First, managers of tourist at-

tractions should consider utilizing bonus promotions to attract

new members, not just relying on discount promotions. Second,

managers should understand that the effectiveness of discount

and bonus promotions can differ in encouraging membership

renewals. For example, for members who did not frequently visitthe botanic garden, discount promotions would be more effec-

tive. However, for members who visited often, bonus promotions

would be more effective than discount promotions. On the other

hand, individuals who intended to renew their memberships to

both hedonic and utilitarian tourist attractions are indifferent

about the type of promotion. Third, managers should understand

the characteristics of their tourist attractions and potential visi-

tors and try to develop tailored promotions for each group of

visitors.

5.3. Limitations and suggestions for future research

Even though this study provides important theoretical and

managerial implications, a few limitations still exist. For instance,

the online samples used in this study might not reect the

true population distributions at tourist attractions. It would

be more realistic and practical to analyze the preferences of

actual members in cooperation with actual tourist attractions next

time.

Nonetheless, this research is a pioneering study that investi-

gated effective promotions for tourist attractions to encourage

new subscriptions and renewals from visitors' perspectives.

There are still lots of areas for further studies to contribute to the

marketing and promotions of tourist attractions. For example, a

study on how rate fencing or different pricing in both daily

tickets and membership fees inuence tourists' behaviors would

help managers develop optimal pricing policies. Research

investigating promotional strategies that appeal to individuals

who have previously renewed their memberships will also be

helpful for attraction managers because this segment of tourists

was indifferent regarding the type of promotion in this study.

Given the importance of tourist attractions in the tourism in-

dustry, continuous future research on effective management

strategies and techniques for tourist attractions will make a

meaningful contribution to both academia and the industry

alike.

Appendix

1. Experiment for new subscription promotion: Study 1e2

(Attraction)

2 (Promotion).



9/10

2. Experiment for renewal promotion: Study 2e2

(Attraction) 2 (Renewal) 2 (Promotion).

References

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior . Springer.Basil, D. Z., Ridgway, N. M., & Basil, M. D. (2008). Guilt and giving: a process model

of empathy and ef cacy. Psychology & Marketing, 25(1), 1e23.Bigne, J. E., Andreu, L., & Gnoth, J. (2005). The theme park experience: an

analysis of pleasure, arousal and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 26 (6),833e844.

Burnett, M. S., & Lunsford, D. A. (1994). Conceptualizing guilt in the con-sumer decision-making process. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 11(3),33e43.

Chandran, S., & Morwitz, V. G. (2006). The Price of “Free”-dom: consumer sensi-tivity to promotions with negative contextual inuences. Journal of Consumer

Research, 33(3), 384e

392.

Chen, H., Marmorstein, H., Tsiros, M., & Rao, A. R. (2012). When more is less: theimpact of base value neglect on consumer preferences for bonus packs overprice discounts. Journal of Marketing, 76 (4), 64e77.

Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utili-tarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (1), 60e71.

Diamond, W. D. (1992). Just what is a“ dollar's worth”? Consumer reactions to pricediscounts vs. extra product promotions. Journal of Retailing, 68(3), 254e270.

Diamond, W. D., & Campbell, L. (1989). The framing of sales promotions: effects onreference price change. Advances in Consumer Research, 16 (1).

Diamond, W. D., & Sanyal, A. (1990). The effect of framing on the choice of super-market coupons. Advances in Consumer Research, 17 (1).

Dong, P., & Siu, N. Y.-M. (2013). Servicescape elements, customer predispositionsand service experience: the case of theme park visitors. Tourism Management,

36 , 541e551.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref1


10/10

Drolet, A., Williams, P., & Lau-Gesk, L. (2007). Age-related differences in responsesto affective vs. rational ads for hedonic vs. utilitarian products. Marketing Let-ters, 18(4), 211e221.

Hardesty, D. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2003). Consumer evaluations of different pro-motion types and price presentations: the moderating role of promotionalbenet level. Journal of Retailing, 79(1), 17e25.

Hede, A.-M., & Hall, J. (2006). Leisure experiences in tourist attractions: exploringthe motivations of local residents. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Manage-ment, 13(01), 10e22.

Hu,W., & Wall, G.(2005). Environmental management,environmentalimageand the

competitive tourist attraction. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(6), 617e

635.International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions. (2012). Amusement

park and attractions industry statistics. Retrieved May 2014, from http://www.iaapa.org/resources/by-park-type/amusement-parks-and-attractions/industry-statistics.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision underrisk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 263e291.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psy-chologist, 39(4), 341.

Kamins, M. A., Folkes, V. S., & Fedorikhin, A. (2009). Promotional bundles andconsumers' price judgments: when the best things in life are not f ree. Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (4), 660e670.

LEGO Land. (2014). LegoLand Merlin annual pass. Retrieved June 2014, from https://www.mylegoland.com/login/.

Leask, A. (2010). Progress in visitor attraction research: towards more effectivemanagement. Tourism Management, 31(2), 155e166.

Milman, A. (2001). The future of the theme park and attraction industry: a man-agement perspective. Journal of Travel Research, 40(2), 139e147.

Milman, A., & Kaak, K. (2013). Theme Parks revenue management. In P. Legoherel,E. Poutier, & A. Fyall (Eds.), Revenue management for hospitality and tourism (pp.143e156). Goodfellow Publishers Ltd.

Mishra, A., & Mishra, H. (2011). The inuence of price discount versus bonus packon the preference for virtue and vice foods. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(1),196e206.

Ong, B. S., Ho, F. N., & Tripp, C. (1997). Consumer perceptions of bonus packs: anexploratory analysis. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14(2), 102e112.

Pearce, P. L. (1991). Analysing tourist attractions. Journal of Tourism Studies, 2(1),46e55.

SeaWorld. (2014). Limited time annual pass offer. December 2014, from http://seaworldparks.com/en/seaworld-sandiego/pfay/ .

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Wadsworth CengageLearning.

Six Flags Magic Mountain. (2014). Season passes & memberships. December 2014,from https://www.sixags.com/magicmountain/store/season-passes .

Smith, M. F., & Sinha, I. (2000). The impact of price and extra product promotions onstore preference. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,

28(2), 83e

92.

Snepenger, D., Murphy, L., Snepenger, M., & Anderson, W. (2004). Normativemeanings of experiences for a spectrum of tourism places. Journal of TravelResearch, 43(2), 108e117.

Swarbrooke, J. (2001). Key challenges for visitor attraction managers in the UK. Journal of Retail & Leisure Property, 1(4), 318e336.

Thaler, R. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing science, 4(3),199e214.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: cumulativerepresentation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297e323.

Universal Studios Hollywood. (2014). Universal studios Hollywood annual pass.

Retrieved June 2014, from http://www.universalstudioshollywood.com/annual-pass/.

Walt Disney World. (2014). Walt Disney world passholder program. Retrieved June2014, from https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/passholder-program/renewal-information/.

Jaemun Byun, M.B.A. is Doctoral student in the School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Purdue Universityin USA. His research interests include tourism marketingand destination management.

SooCheong (Shawn) Jang , Ph.D. is Professor in the Schoolof Hospitality and Tourism Management, Purdue Univer-sity in USA. His research interests are twofold: hospitalitynance/strategic management and hospitality/tourismmarketing. Dr. Jang has more than 150 published articles inrefereed top-tier HTM and business journals and hasreceived numerous accolades including the W. BradfordWiley Memorial Best Research Paper of the Year Award2009 and the Michael D. Olsen Research Achievement Award

2015. In addition, he was recognized as the top-rankedauthor in HTM academia during the past decade (Journalof Hospitality and Tourism Research (2011), 35(3)). Dr.

Jan g is fre que ntl y inv ite d as a sp eak er for aca dem icresearch or interdisciplinary research by many universities

as well as international conferences.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref15http://www.iaapa.org/resources/by-park-type/amusement-parks-and-attractions/industry-statisticshttp://www.iaapa.org/resources/by-park-type/amusement-parks-and-attractions/industry-statisticshttp://www.iaapa.org/resources/by-park-type/amusement-parks-and-attractions/industry-statisticshttp://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref17http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref17http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref17http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref17http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref17http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref17http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref19https://www.mylegoland.com/login/https://www.mylegoland.com/login/https://www.mylegoland.com/login/http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref26http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref26http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref26http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref26http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref26http://seaworldparks.com/en/seaworld-sandiego/pfay/http://seaworldparks.com/en/seaworld-sandiego/pfay/http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref28http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref28http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref28http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref28http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref28https://www.sixflags.com/magicmountain/store/season-passeshttps://www.sixflags.com/magicmountain/store/season-passeshttps://www.sixflags.com/magicmountain/store/season-passeshttp://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref31http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref31http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref31http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref31http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref31http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref31http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref33http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref33http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref33http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref33http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref33http://www.universalstudioshollywood.com/annual-pass/http://www.universalstudioshollywood.com/annual-pass/https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/passholder-program/renewal-information/https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/passholder-program/renewal-information/https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/passholder-program/renewal-information/https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/passholder-program/renewal-information/http://www.universalstudioshollywood.com/annual-pass/http://www.universalstudioshollywood.com/annual-pass/http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref33http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref33http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref33http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref31http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref31http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref31http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref31http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref30https://www.sixflags.com/magicmountain/store/season-passeshttp://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref28http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref28http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref28http://seaworldparks.com/en/seaworld-sandiego/pfay/http://seaworldparks.com/en/seaworld-sandiego/pfay/http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref26http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref26http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref26http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref21https://www.mylegoland.com/login/https://www.mylegoland.com/login/http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref17http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref17http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref17http://www.iaapa.org/resources/by-park-type/amusement-parks-and-attractions/industry-statisticshttp://www.iaapa.org/resources/by-park-type/amusement-parks-and-attractions/industry-statisticshttp://www.iaapa.org/resources/by-park-type/amusement-parks-and-attractions/industry-statisticshttp://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00038-2/sref12

Documents

Effective Promotions for Membership.discount vs. Bonus