ࡱ>  bjbj -#####D $ $ $$Y% $}f-(p(((())) }}}}}}}|}-#*))**}##((<},,,*d#(#( },* },,%n et(Nc  $?+dEp<|R}0}p+dxetet#]u)>),, *$0*)))}},)))}****))))))))) ": EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF IN-STORE SAMPLING PROMOTIONS Abstract Purpose -- This paper investigates the impact of in-store sample promotions of food products on consumer trial and purchasing behavior. We investigate differences in the trial rate for free samples across different products and consumer types, as well as the impact of sampling on product and category purchase incidence. The results of our study are relevant for retailers and manufacturers who invest in in-store free sample promotions. Design/methodology/approach We use data from a field study, which leveraged an actual free-sample program implemented by a US grocery store chain. Data was collected on six different products promoted by in-store free samples over six different weekends. The data collected included consumers trial and purchasing behavior with respect to the free sample, as well as their attitudes towards the free sample that day and free sample promotions in general. Findings Free sampling is very effective in inducing trial, especially among lower educated consumers. For consumers who were planning to buy the product in promoted category, free sampling can encourage switching from the planned to the promoted brand. For consumers who did not have such previous plans, free sampling can draw them into the category and encourage category purchase. Samplers interactions with the person distributing the sample or with other samplers at the scene also seem to boost post-sample purchase incidence. Originality/value Despite the importance of free samples as a promotional tool, few studies have examined consumer trial and purchasing behavior with respect to in-store free samples. We present one of the first known field studies that examines this topic. Key words: in-store samples, point-of-purchase promotions, trial behavior, purchase incidence Paper type: Research paper INTRODUCTION Consumers today are bombarded with all different types of promotions. Vlachvei et al. (2009) show that for some food products like wine, promotions are even more important than advertising in ensuring profitability of the product. Most attention in the academic research has been devoted to the impact of promotions such as price promotions and coupons (Gadenk and Neslin, 1999; Colombo et al., 2003; Swaminathan and Bawa, 2005) and the impact of loyalty schemes (Mauri, 2003; Meyer-Waarden, 2007; Demoulin and Zidda, 2008). However, the research on promotions such as product trials, free samples and free gifts have largely been overlooked (Peattie, 1998). Among various types of promotions, few are as effective as free samples for generating trial and purchase (e.g., Rossiter and Percy, 1987; Belch and Belch, 1990). Studies in the popular press on in-store sampling have shown that 92 percent of consumers would rather be presented with a free sample over a cents-off coupon while in the store (Fitzgerald, 1996), nearly 70 percent of shoppers will try an in-store sample if approached, 37 percent will buy a product once sampled (Lindstedt, 1999), and in-store samples can increase sales of the sampled product by as much as 300 percent on the day of the promotion (Moses, 2005). Given these benefits, it is not surprising that expenditures on sampling programs increased to approximately $2B in 2004, a 50 percent increase from 2003 (Zwiebach, 2005). However, in the academic marketing literature, sampling remains one of the most under-researched areas of promotions (Heiman et al. 2001). In-store sampling promotions have unique characteristics that require special consideration and therefore studies of their own. First, in contrast to at-home sampling which has been studied extensively in the literature (Rothschild and Gaidis, 1981; Gadenk and Neslin, 1999), in-store sampling occurs in a public setting at the point-of-purchase and therefore may be affected by a variety of environmental or situational factors, such as the manner in which the sample is presented, the presence of others at the sampling promotion site, or whether the consumer was planning a purchase in the category that day. Any of these could affect a consumers decision of whether to take a free sample and/or to purchase the promoted product. Another unique characteristic of in-store sampling is a marketers lack of control over who ultimately receives the promotion. This is because the distribution of in-store free samples is determined by consumers willingness to take the sample. Therefore, it is advantageous for marketers to understand consumers motives for taking, or rejecting, an in-store free sample if they wish to increase the trial rate of such a promotion. Despite these unique characteristics of in-store sampling, and the importance of this promotional tool to retailers and consumer packaged goods manufacturers, no research has investigated the impact of free sample promotions on trial and purchase in its natural environment to address such issues. The research examining in-store free samples is sparse and in many cases not easily generalized. Lammers (1991) provided samples to consumers in a chocolate store and found the sample increased the immediate sales of chocolate. However, due to the unique characteristics of chocolate (e.g., impulse/gift purchase) and the retail format studied (e.g., a specialty shop with limited products and brand alternatives), the results here are not easily generalized to other food types and to sampling in a grocery store setting. Furthermore, because all patrons were given a free sample, the study does not probe the factors that affect a consumers decision to take or decline a free sample. Steinberg and Yalch (1978) also examined the effects of in-store free samples on shopping behavior, but focused on the differences in shopping behavior of obese and non-obese consumers. They found that consuming a food sample caused obese consumers to increase their purchasing in the store that day. Again, while interesting, the results here do not have broad application. There are some studies that, while they do not research the impact of in-store free samples explicitly, include in-store sampling in their broader study of different types of in-store promotions (Rothschild and Gaidis, 1981; Gadenk and Neslin, 1999). Because in-store sampling is only one type of the many promotions studied in these papers, these papers do not examine in-store sampling at the level of detail as we, for example, by investigating the factors that affect consumers decision to take an in-store free sample or the impact of free samples on purchasing behavior and store perceptions. Our study focuses on in-store free samples of food products presented within a grocery or club store. The purpose of our study is to examine the factors that affect consumers decision to take such free samples and the impact of in-store free samples on purchasing behavior and store perceptions. We present empirical results from an in-store field study that intercepted consumers during a free sample promotion. Data was collected on six different weekends for six different sampled products. Our study provides insights into this important type of in-store promotion and is useful for retailers and manufacturers of food products who invest in such sampling promotions. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In the next section we provide the details of our in-store field study and the resulting data collected. We then present the results of our empirical analysis, the insights gained from our findings, and the relevance of our results for marketers. We conclude with directions for future research. IN-STORE FIELD STUDY To collect our data we leveraged the existing free-sample program implemented by a Midwestern U.S. grocery store chain. On any given weekend the grocery chain ran sample promotions for the same products in all of its stores over the entire weekend (Friday-Sunday). For ease of the facilitation of the data collection, each weekend we focused exclusively on one promoted product only and data was collected for that promoted product in three different stores within the chain on that weekend. Different outlets within the grocery chain were chosen to ensure variance in the demographics and socio-economic status of the consumers in our sample. Data collection commenced for six consecutive weekends resulting in a dataset consisting of six different products promoted by in-store samples. The products investigated were chosen to allow for a cross-section of product characteristics among those we were interested in investigating and the six consecutive weekends were chosen to avoid issues of seasonality and holiday periods that might have influenced shopping behavior, and as such, we were able to ensure as much consistency as possible in the shopping conditions across the six weekends investigated. While the duration of the data collection was consistent each day (three hours), the starting times differed each day in order to vary the mix of customers intercepted and to eliminate any possible time of day effects. Finally, in all cases the free sample was presented in close proximity to the shelf where the product was normally displayed and packages of the sampled product were also available for purchase at the sampling station. Consumers were intercepted while exiting the store and screened for having seen the free sample of interest. Among those who had seen the free sample we surveyed both samplers (those who took the sample) and non-samplers (those who saw the sample but declined to take it) about their behavior and attitudes with respect to the free sample promotion that day and in-store free sample promotions in general. Upon completing the survey all participants were offered $5 in exchange for their grocery receipt and participation in a lottery drawing to win one of three $100 cash prizes. All survey participants accepted this offer. Of the 380 intercepted consumers who had seen the free sample, 354 (93 percent) agreed to participate in our study, and of those 259 (73 percent) were samplers and 95 (27 percent) were non-samplers. Table 1 provides information about the products studied, the sample rate of those products (e.g., the percentage of consumers who took the sample given they saw it), and the purchase incidence for the promoted product among samplers and non-samplers. [Insert Table 1] We note that the products in our study varied on many characteristics that should be of interest to practitioners and academics. These include the price of the sampled product, whether the sample was for a new product (e.g., a line extension in the form of a new flavor or new form, but not a new brand or a brand extension into a new category), whether it was a store brand, whether it required cooking preparation at the site of the promotion, and whether the product was perceived as offering consumers hedonic (e.g., fun or more treat like) and/or utilitarian (e.g., useful and practical) benefits. Regarding this last characteristics, because there was virtually no overlap in the products in our study and those prior to ours that have labeled products as hedonic or utilitarian (Chandon, Wansink and Laurent 2000; Simonson, Carmon and OCurry 1994; Voss, Spangenberg, and Grohmann 2003), the procedure used to label the products in our study as either high, medium or low on the hedonic/utilitarian scale, and as reflected in Table 1, is provided in the Appendix. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS The following presents our insights about trial behavior with respect to in-store free samples, consumers motives for taking or declining a free sample, and consumers attitudes towards in-store free samples in general. Trial Behavior We begin by noting that of the 354 consumers randomly intercepted in the store and who had seen the free sample, 259 (73 percent) took the free sample. This high trial given exposure rate is in line with the popular press statistics reported earlier and is good news for manufacturers who invest in such a promotions, especially if their main goal is to spur trial. Akin to coupon-proneness which can vary by consumers individual characteristics and some category specific variables (Colombo et al, 2003; Swaminathan and Bawa, 2005), we investigate whether we can differentiate customers according to their sample-proneness. In particular, we were interested in whether there were any personal characteristics that differentiated those who took a free sample and those who declined to take one despite seeing it and whether certain products were more likely to be sampled than others. To investigate the former we compared samplers and non-samplers based on their demographic and shopping behavior information shown in Table 2. The only demographic characteristic that differentiated samplers from non-samplers was whether they had a college degree. Specifically, we found that samplers were less likely than non-samplers to have a college degree (p < 0.05). This suggests that free sample promotions have the potential to be more effective for generating trial in markets with a less-educated population. [Insert Table 2] We note there is no difference between samplers and non-samplers in the size of their shopping baskets or the amount they spent on their shopping trip. This dispels the idea that sampling is less likely to occur on filler trips when consumers wish to get through the store quickly. However, we do find that those who took the sample of interest sampled more products in the store that day (1.78 samples) than those who did not take the sample (0.60) (t=11.11, p < 0.001). This suggests that sampling may be a consumer characteristic rather than something a consumer does if the product is of interest to them. Next, we were interested in whether the trial rate varied across products. To test this we compared the trial rate (e.g., the percentage of consumers who sampled the product given they saw it) across the six product categories. We see in Table 1 that the trial rate for ice cream and bread is statistically greater than the trial rate for the rest of the products (p < 0.01). We also found the trial rate for bagels (0.62) and yogurt (0.74) is not statistically different from each other (p > 0.15), but is statistically (p < 0.06) greater than the trial rate for ground turkey (0.43) and frozen pizza (0.40). Examining these results in light of the products characteristics in Table 1 it seems that consumers are most likely to sample products perceived as highly hedonic (ice cream) or highly utilitarian (bread). We note that the two products that were the least likely to be sampled were those that required cooking at the point of promotion. Perhaps consumers fears of consuming undercooked food or food that isnt prepared to their tastes deters them from taking samples of such products. Price did not seem to impact the likelihood that a product will be sampled. These results are highly relevant for managers as they consider which products within their portfolio to promote with an in-store free sample promotion. Consumer Motives for Taking or Declining Free Samples In addition to observing sampling behavior, we were interested in the reasons why consumers take or decline free samples after seeing them. To investigate the former we asked samplers to indicate their agreement with the list of motives for taking a free sample shown in Table 3 and which were derived from exploratory research prior to this study. We see that the leading reason consumers take free samples is to find out how the product tastes. This provides some initial support for one of our earlier findings, that new products have a high trial rate, perhaps because presumably consumers have no knowledge of how the new product tastes. It also suggests that free samples may be effective for inducing trial of existing products among consumers who have little experience in the category or with the promoted product, or for follower brands that simply do not have the same consumer exposure as a market leader, because in these cases consumers presumably have limited knowledge about the taste of the promoted product. While these insights may seem obvious, one might have expected the opposite behavior that due to risk aversion consumers would be more likely to try products with which they were familiar in order to avoid the potentially bad experience of sampling a product they did not like. In light of our findings, it is promising that free samples do not seem to be wasted on consumers who already know how the promoted product tastes, but rather samples seem to be attracting consumers who are truly interested in trying the product because they are unfamiliar with it. [Insert Table 3] Another point we were interested in was whether there existed a relationship between consumers motives to sample a product and their likelihood to purchase the product after sampling it. To investigate whether post-sample purchase was correlated with sample motives we began by reducing the sampling motives to a more meaningful and manageable number using exploratory factor analysis with principal components method and Varimax rotation. A three-factor solution captured 62 percent of the variation and was maintained based on the fact that the Eigen values for the first three factors were greater than one and those of the remaining factors were less than one. The three-vector solution was also supported by the scree plot. Cronbachs alpha ranged from .66 to .75. The first factor captures consumers awareness of others at the sampling location (e.g., the employee distributing the sample, other samplers). We labeled this factor the Human Motive. The second factor captures the ability of the sample to enhance the shopping experience (e.g., satiate hunger, provide something free, make the shopping experience more enjoyable) and was labeled Hedonic Motive (Kempf 1999; Mano and Oliver 1993). The last factor captures consumers desires to gather information about the product -- either about the way the product tasted (Scott and Yalch 1980) or other product information. We labeled this factor Utilitarian Motive. Comparing the mean scores of these factors for samplers who did and did not purchase the sampled product we find that those who purchased the sampled product had a statistically higher score on the Human Motive factor than did those who did not make a post-sample purchase (F = 2.75, p < 0.10). The other two factors were not statistically different between samplers who purchased and those who did not. This may suggest that samplers with a heightened awareness of the presence of others at the sampling station may feel a level of social pressure to make a post-sample purchase than samplers who were not motivated to sample by, and therefore less aware of, those around them. It also suggests that efforts to make more salient the hedonic and utilitarian benefits of sampling in an effort to encourage customers to sample for such reasons may not increase the overall post-sample purchase rate. As mentioned earlier, we were also interested in the reasons non-samplers declined a free sample despite seeing it. Table 4 presents non-samplers responses to eleven possible reasons for declining a free sample despite seeing it, again derived from exploratory research. Interestingly, the top two reasons were because consumers were not hungry and because they were not planning a purchase in the category in which the free sample was presented. This suggests that to maximize the trial rate for free samples it may be best to offer samples during times when people are more likely to be hungry (e.g., right before lunch or dinner) and in frequently purchased product categories where consumers are more likely to be planning a purchase in the promoted category on any given shopping trip. [Insert Table 4] Consumers General Perceptions of Free Sample Promotions In talking to store managers prior to this study we found many believed that free samples enhanced consumers shopping experience, improved consumers perceptions of their stores, and had the power to increase store traffic. To investigate these issues we asked all participants to indicate their general perceptions of stores that offer free samples. Table 5 presents the insights from this inquiry. We see that consumers look forward to receiving free samples, and to a lesser extent, feel that in-store free samples make the shopping experience more festive. However, based on the low scores for the last two statements in Table 5 it seems that overall positive feelings about free samples do not drive consumers to the stores that offer them, potentially dispelling managers belief that free samples can boost store traffic. [Insert Table 5] As important as it is to understand the ability of free samples to induce trial, it is equally important to understand the ability of free samples to generate purchase. The following two sections analyze the impact of free samples on purchase incidence for the promoted product and the promoted category, respectively. Table 6 presents the purchase incidence results for both the promoted product and for another brand within the same category as that promoted by the free sample among both samplers and non-samplers in our study. [Insert Table 6] Product Purchase Incidence With the reasonable prediction that samplers would be more likely than non-samplers to purchase the promoted product, we used a one-tailed t-test to compare the difference between the proportion of samplers and non-samplers who purchased ground turkey, bagels, frozen pizza and yogurt. We found that samplers were significantly more likely to purchase bagels (p<0.05), pizza (p<0.05) and yogurt (p < 0.01) and marginally more likely to purchase ground turkey (p < 0.10). Furthermore, the purchase rate for the promoted product when collapsed across all categories was significantly higher for samplers (40 percent) versus non-samplers (seven percent) (t = 5.89, p < 0.001). This finding is encouraging for manufacturers as it suggests a free sample promotion may induce purchase incidence of the promoted product among those who take the free sample and therefore an increase in the trial rate of the promoted product should lead to an increase in sales of the promoted product that day. However, we note that the fact that samplers were more likely to be planning a purchase in the promoted category prior to entering the store fifty-six percent of samplers were planning a category purchase versus sixteen percent of non-samplers (t = 6.02, p < 0.001), the real benefit here is if the free sample resulted in those consumers who were planning a purchase to switch brands, which we address shortly. Next, we compared the unplanned purchase incidence rate (e.g., the percentage of purchases for the promoted product in which the consumer had not planned to make a category purchase on that trip) between samplers and non-samplers. Although the unplanned purchase rate for samplers was much greater than that for non-samplers (0.50 vs. 0.29, respectively), because of the small sample size for non-samplers (driven by the fact that so many consumers take free samples) the two were not statistically different (t=1.09, p > 0.10). This result suggests that simply seeing the free sample has the potential to encourage purchase among non-samplers who were not planning to purchase in the category promoted by the free sample, perhaps because the sample acts as advertising that reminds the consumer to buy in the category. However, despite the small sample size among non-samplers, more research should be conducted before making any conclusions here. The last point of interest was whether free samples encourage brand switching. To investigate this we compared the percentage of samplers and non-samplers who purchased the promoted brand, but for which the promoted brand was not their preferred brand (e.g., brand switchers), where preferred brand was elicited from an open-ended question on the survey which asked for the brand most often purchased when shopping in the category. Of the 102 samplers who purchased the promoted brand and indicated their brand preferences, 61 stated that the promoted brand was not the one they typically purchased in the category, suggesting a 60 percent brand switching rate among samplers. Comparatively we found that 29 percent of non-samplers who purchased the promoted brand were brand switchers, as defined above. The difference in this brand switching rate between samplers and non-samplers is marginally significant (t = 1.62, p = 0.10) and is an exciting prospect that should be further investigated with a larger sample size. If confirmed, this is encouraging news for manufacturers in that it indicates that free samples have the ability to encourage those who take in-store free samples to switch away from their usually purchased brand in the category to the promoted brand on the day of the promotion. Category Purchase Incidence One aspect of sampling relevant to retailers is whether free samples are able to draw consumers into the promoted category (both figuratively and spatially) to encourage category purchase incidence, even if not for the promoted brand. To test whether samplers were more likely to make a category purchase we compared the category purchase incidence rate for samplers (54 percent) and non-samplers (14percent) and found the difference was statistically significant (t = 6.85, p < 0.01). To investigate whether this result might have been driven by the fact that samplers were simply more likely to be planning a purchase in the category prior to exposure to the sample we found that thirteen non-samplers were planning a category purchase and thirteen actually purchased, for a 100 percent actual-to-planned category purchase rate among non-samplers. Comparatively, there were 93 samplers who were planning a category purchase and 141 who actually purchased in the category, for a 152 percent actual-to-planned category purchase rate, and this was significantly higher than that of non-samplers (t = 2.54, p < 0.01). With so much attention placed on the importance of free samples for manufacturers, it would be easy to overlook such a result. However, the 52 percentage point increase in the actual-to-planned category purchase rate for samplers over non-samplers should encourage retailers to support free sample promotions in their stores as a means of increasing category and store sales on the day of the promotion. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Despite the importance of in-store free samples as a promotional tool used by consumer packaged goods manufacturers and retailers alike, few studies have examined consumer trial and purchasing behavior with respect to in-store free samples and in its actual setting. We present one of the first known field studies that examines the impact of in-store free samples on trial and purchasing behavior among consumers who take free samples and those who decline one despite seeing it. Our study leveraged an actual free-sample program implemented by a U.S. grocery store chain. Data was collected on six different food products promoted by in-store free samples over six different weekends. Table 7 provides a summary of our findings and their implications for managers. [Insert Table 7] We find that free sampling is very efficient at inducing trial, which is encouraging for manufacturers who invest in free sample promotions. Our study indicates that although samples are effective for all types of consumers, less educated consumers seem to be more sensitive to free sampling promotions. This finding should encourage manufacturers to allocate a greater proportion of their promotion budget to in-store free samples in markets comprised of less-educated consumers. We find that the success of the free sampling program may depend on the type of product being sampled. Our results suggest that highly hedonic (ice cream) and highly utilitarian (bread) may benefit most from sampling. Alternatively, products that required cooking at the promotional sight (pizza and ground turkey) were the least likely to be sampled. Such insights can be used to guide decisions about the types of products for which free sample promotions can generate the greatest trial. In examining the reasons for sampling we were able to identify three latent motives: 1) to make the shopping experience more enjoyable (hedonic motives), 2) to gather information about the product (utilitarian motives), and 3) because of the heighted awareness of, and desire to interact with, other people at the sampling site (e.g., the appeal of the person distributing the sample, the presence of other samplers) (human motives). Interestingly, those with high human sampling motives were more likely to purchase the sampled product than were those with high utilitarian or hedonic sampling motives. This suggests that the ability of the person distributing the sample to draw consumers to the sample in friendly way, or simply having many people sampling at any given time, could help boost post-sample purchase incidence. As such, marketers should pay close attention to the demeanor of the person distributing the sample and/or promote samples during busier shopping times when a critical mass of samplers is more likely to form. The leading reasons non-samplers gave for not taking the free sample were, 1) because they were not hungry and 2) because they were not planning to make a purchase in the category promoted by the sample. This insight suggests that trial rates for free samples might increase if the samples were distributed when people were more likely to be hungry (e.g., right before lunch or dinner) or if such promotions were used on products where more consumers were likely to be purchasing in that category on any given day (e.g., products with shorter inter-purchase cycles). We also found that despite the fact that most consumers look forward to free samples, there was no indication that free samples enhance consumers perceptions of the stores that provided them. Interestingly, this finding is contrary to the conventional wisdom of the store managers we interviewed prior to this study. Shifting our focus from sampling behavior to purchase behavior our results suggest that free samples may not increase the likelihood of an unplanned purchase of the promoted product, but they appear useful for encouraging those who were already planning a purchase in the category to switch from their usually purchased brand to the one promoted by the free sample. The final aspect of purchase behavior we investigated is of special interest to retailers, specifically whether free samples impact overall category sales. Our results suggest that those who sample are drawn into the category, and even if they do not purchase the promoted brand they are more likely to make a category purchases, perhaps because the category is made more salient by the promotion. This increase in unplanned category purchases among samplers in comparison to non-samplers suggests that in-store samples can boost category and store sales on the day of the in-store sample promotions. While this paper provides important insights into the power and limitations of free samples for retailers and manufacturers, it is not without limitations. However, these limitations lend themselves to future research opportunities. To begin, because our study focused exclusively on in-store sampling in a grocery store setting, it would be worthwhile to replicate our study in other store formats such as discount stores, convenience stores, club stores, etc. to see whether the impact of in-store sampling promotions varies across these store formats. Next, given our field-study of in-store samples is one of the first of its kind, it would be useful to replicate our study using more and different product categories, and with more observations, in order to confirm the results presented here or identify differences across categories. We also recognize that intercepting consumers at the end of the shopping trip and asking them to reflect on that which occurred before and during the shopping trip may lend itself to some biases. However, similar concerns would exist if consumers were intercepted while entering the store or right after having passed and taken the sample. As such, future studies should attempt to tease out such biases by conducting studies of free-sample promotions using different experimental designs than that presented in this research. Similarly, while our approach provides real world validity for the issues we investigate, it would be interesting to test our findings in an experimental setting where more variables could be controlled for and studied (the demeanor of the person distributing the sample and the information he/she provides, the positioning of the free sample relative to the product within the aisle, etc). It would also be interesting to study the long-term impact of an in-store free-sample. If it were found that sampling a product in-store increased the likelihood of purchase on subsequent shopping trips, then even if a purchase was not made on the day of the promotion, the in-store sample could still be deemed as effective. Our hope is that this paper will encourage more studies on this under-researched topic of in-store free samples. Table 1 Product Information and Consumer Sampling and Purchasing Behavior Product Price New Productc Store Brandc Sample CookedcMean Hedonic Score (SD)Mean Utilitarian Score (SD) Trial Rated Purchase Incidence Ratee Samplers Non-SamplersGround Turkey (N= 60a)$1.59b001-1.27 (0.66) LOW-0.54 (1.33) LOW0.43 LOW0.27 0.09 Bagels (N= 39)$2.491000.39 (0.56) MED-0.07 (0.56) MED0.62 MED0.21 0.00 Frozen Pizza (N= 30)$3.33011-0.11 (0.86) MED-0.22 (0.91) MED0.40 LOW0.25 0.00 Yogurt (N= 109)$0.501000.19 (0.58) MED0.37 (0.74) MED0.74 MED0.57 0.14 Ice Cream (N= 43)$2.500101.25 (0.50) HIGH-0.41 (0.92) MED1.00 HIGH0.37 --Bread (N= 73)$2.00110-0.46 (0.66) MED0.87 (0.72) HIGH1.00 HIGH0.37 --Average (N= 354)0.73 (259)0.40 (104/259)0.07 (7/95)a The total number of consumers intercepted during data collection for this free sample. bDue to different sizes sold, this was the average price based on actual prices paid c1 = Yes, 0 = No dThe percentage of intercepted consumers who took the free sample given they actually saw it. eThe percentage of Samplers and Non-Samplers who bought the promoted product, respectively. Table 2 Descriptive Information About Study Participants Demographics of ParticipantsSamplers (N= 259)Non-Samplers (N=95)% males19%20%Average Age45 yrs. 46 yrs.% with College Degree52%*69%*% employed full-time49%48%Average income$57,500$60,000Average household size2.6 people2.6 people% of HH Grocery Shopping Done by Consumer87%84%Total Amount Spent$70.27$74.05Total Number Items Purchased30 items33 itemsNumber of Products Sampled That Day1.78**0.60***Statistically different at p < 0.05; **Statistically different at p < 0.01 Table 3 Samplers Responses to the Question, How Well Do the Following Statements Describe Why You Took the Free Sample?a Reason for Taking the Free Sample (Mean)  Human Motive  Hedonic Motive  Utilitarian Motive  I wanted to see how the product tasted (6.19a)-0.0310.1260.820 I enjoy sampling new products (5.98)0.0630.6370.440 The sample was free (5.60)0.1120.7820.095 I wanted to learn more about the product (5.51)0.212-0.0560.701 The person distributing the sample invited me to taste it (5.33)0.833-0.0570.244 I saw other people taking the free sample (5.11)0.7270.198-0.040 I was hungry (4.83)0.1030.656-0.415 The person distributing the sample seemed nice (3.53)0.8340.1860.004 Samples make the shopping experience more enjoyable (3.48)0.4970.5670.175 % Variation Explained0.330.170.15 Cronbachs Alpha0.750.680.66aOn a 7-pt scale where 1= strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree Table 4 Non-Samplers Responses to the Question, Why Did You Choose Not to Take the Free Sample? Statement (N=95)Mean (Std. Dev.) aI was not hungry4.83 (2.50)I was not planning on making a purchase in that category today4.52 (2.74)I was in a hurry3.82 (2.38)I was not interested in the product3.60 (2.27)I already know all I need to know about this product3.54 (2.39)The sample would have been of no use to me3.09 (2.26)I do not typically take free samples3.05 (2.24)I did not want to feel guilty about not making a purchase2.27 (2.05)It was too crowded2.26 (1.97)I was worried about the sanitary nature of the free sample2.20 (1.76)I did not want to feel obligated to buy the product2.01 (1.97)aOn a 7-point scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree Table 5 Consumers Response to the Question, How Much Do You Agree With the Following Statements About In-Store Free Samples? Statement (N=354)Mean (Std. Dev) aI look forward to receiving free samples when I do my grocery shopping5.20 (1.99)Stores that provide free samples are more festive4.64 (2.14)Stores that provide free samples are of better quality3.52 (2.19)I choose my grocery store based on the free samples they provide2.77 (1.98)I do my grocery shopping when I know there will be free samples2.03 (1.51)aOn a 7-point scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree Table 6 Purchasing Behavior of Samplers and Non-Samplers % of Consumers Who Were Planning a Category Purchase% of Consumers Who Purchased the Promoted Product % of Purchases for the Promoted Product that Were Unplanned% of Purchases for the Promoted Product That Were Not the Consumers Preferred Brand% of Consumers Who Purchased in the Promoted CategorySamplers (N=259) 0.36  0.40  0.50  0.60  0.54 Non-Samplers (N=95) 0.14  0.07  0.29 0.29 0.14 Table 7 Summary of Findings FindingsManagerial Implications73% of consumers who saw the free sample took it.High trial given exposure rate suggests free samples are effective for inducing product trial.Samplers were less likely than non-samplers to have a college degree.Free sample promotions may be more effective for generating trial in markets comprised of less-educated consumers.Consumers were most likely to sample products perceived as highly hedonic (e.g., ice cream) and highly utilitarian (e.g., bread). Products that required cooking were the least likely to be sampled.Samples may be most effective for products that are highly hedonic (e.g., cookies, chips) or highly utilitarian (e.g., bread). Free samples should be avoided for products that require cooking at the point of purchase. Those who sampled because the person distributing the sample seemed nice and invited them to sample or because they saw others sampling were most likely to purchase the sampled product.The demeanor of the employee distributing the free sample, his/her ability to encourage consumers to sample the promoted product, or simply having a critical mass of people sampling at any given time may increase post-sample purchase incidence.The top reasons non-samplers chose not to sample were because they were not hungry and because they were not planning a purchase in the category in which the free sample was offered.Free samples may be more effective for encouraging trial when offered before lunch or dinner and in frequently purchased categories where more consumers are planning to purchase in the category that day.Consumers look forward to in-store free samples and feel they make the shopping experience more festive. However, free samples do not seem to influence store choice.Free samples most likely do not boost store traffic.The percentage of samplers who switched to the promoted brand was significantly greater than that for non-samplers.Free samples may induce brand switching among those who actual take the sample.The actual-to-planed purchase ration was 152 percent for samplers versus 100 percent for non-samplers.The 52 percentage-point increase in unplanned category purchases among samplers should encourage retailers to support free sample promotions as a means of increasing category and store sales. REFERENCES Belch, G.E. and Belch, M.A. (1990), Introduction to Advertising and Promotion Management, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL. Chandon, P., Wansink, B. and Laurent, G. (2000), A benefit congruency framework of sales promotion effectiveness, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 64, October, pp. 65-81. Colombo, R., Bawa, K. and Srinivasan, S. S. (2003), HYPERLINK "http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VGN-44VG223-1&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=article&_cdi=6043&_sort=v&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=416&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e21619ddf4773255f3477efc17c7747c"Examining the dimensionality of coupon proneness: a random coefficients approach, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 10, Issue 1, pp. 27-33. Demoulin, N. T. M. and Zidda, P. (2008), HYPERLINK "http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VGN-4R8M996-1&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=article&_cdi=6043&_sort=v&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=194&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c28f706061e5d03b77ab68d48a365473"On the impact of loyalty cards on store loyalty: Does the customers satisfaction with the reward scheme matter?, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 15, Issue 5, pp. 386-398. Fitzgerald, K. (1996), Survey: Consumers prefer sampling over coupons, Advertising Age, 29 January 29, pp. 9. Gadenk, K. and Neslin, S. A. (1999), The role of retail promotion in determining future brand loyalty: its effect on purchase even feedback, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 75, No. 4, pp. 43-59. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., and Tatham, R. L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Heiman, A., McWilliams, B., Shen, Z. and Zilberman, D. (2001), Learning and forgetting: modeling optimal product sampling over time, Management Science, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 532-546. Kempf, D. S. (1999), Attitude formation from product trial: distinct roles of cognition and affect for hedonic and functional products, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 35-50. Lammers, B. H. (1991), The effect of free samples on immediate consumer purchase, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 31-7. Lindstedt, S. (1999), Tops supermarkets in western New York entice shoppers with free food samples, 24, May, pp. B3. Mauri, C. (2003), HYPERLINK "http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VGN-47FDGF0-3&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=article&_cdi=6043&_sort=v&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=97&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e0639ef4cb9bea4599be77b3f0134b3d"Card loyalty. A new emerging issue in grocery retailing, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 10, Issue 1, pp. 13-25. Mano, H. and Oliver R. (1993), Assessing the dimensionality and structure of consumption experience: evaluation, feeling and satisfaction, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, December, pp. 451-466. Meyer-Waarden, L. (2007), The effects of loyalty programs on customer lifetime duration and share of wallet, HYPERLINK "http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00224359"Journal of Retailing, HYPERLINK "http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236568%232007%23999169997%23647735%23FLA%23&_cdi=6568&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cd3880f6420c8b5e1fed11ff3afe4177"Vol. 83, Issue 2, pp. 223-236. Moses, L. (2005), Food city expands sampling program, Supermarket News, 4 April, pp. 43. Peattie, S. (1998), Promotional competitions as a marketing tool in food retailing, British Food Journal, Vol. 100, No. 6, pp. 286294. Rossiter, J.R. and Percy, L. (1987), Advertising and Promotion Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, N.Y. Rothschild, M. and Gaidis, W. C. (1981), Behavioral learning theory: Its relevance to marketing and promotions, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45, Spring, pp. 70-78. Scott, C. A. and Yalch, R. F. (1980), Consumer response to initial product trial: a bayesian analysis, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 32-41. Simonson, I. Carmon, Z. and O'Curry, S. (1994), "Experimental evidence on the negative effect of product features & sales promotions on brand choice", Marketing Science, Vol. 13, Winter, pp. 23-40. Steinberg, S. A. and Yalch, R. F. (1978), When eating begets buying: the effects of food samples on obese and non-obese shoppers, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4, March, pp. 243-246. Swaminathan, S. and Bawa, K. (2005), HYPERLINK "http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W5D-4GY884K-3&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=article&_cdi=6568&_sort=v&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=8&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f745a290be920799e33bcd5c8b966013"Category-specific coupon proneness: The impact of individual characteristics and category-specific variables, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 81, Issue 3, pp. 205-214. Vlachvei, A., Notta, O, and Ananiadis, I. (2009) Does advertising matter? An application to the Greek wine industry, British Food Journal, Vol. 111, No. 7, pp. 686-698. Voss, K., Spangenberg, E. R. and Grohmann, B. (2003), "Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 40, August, pp. 310-320. Zwiebach, E. (2005), Marsh increases in-store sampling, Supermarket News, 28 February, pp. 24. Appendix To determine consumers perceptions of the sampled products as either hedonic or utilitarian we asked 52 staff members at a public southern university to rate the six products on the ten-item hedonic/utilitarian (HED/UT) scale developed by Voss, Spangenberg and Grohmann (2003) and shown in the table below. Confirmatory factor analysis using principal components method with varimax rotation was performed and confirmed a two-factor solution. The two factor solution shown in the table below captured 82% of the variation in the original data and Cronbachs alpha is reported for each factor. The loadings for each factor greater than 0.5, the point at which loadings are considered to be practically significant (Hair et al. 2006), are highlighted. Factor Analysis Results for Hedonic/Utilitarian Measures MeasureHedonicUtilitarianFun.880.288Exciting.945.169Enjoyable.862.343Thrilling.903.219Delightful.918.261Helpful.227.847Functional.265.885Practical.134.903Necessary.258.729Effective.290.798Cronbach s 0.8390.659 From these factor loadings we calculated factor scores for each participant and then averaged those factor scores for each product. The average factor scores are reported in Table 1. Finally, we conducted a one-way ANOVA analysis to discover that the average factor scores were statistically different across the six products on both the hedonic (F = 29.21, p < 0.001) and utilitarian factor (F = 5.924, p < 0.001). This analysis revealed that ground turkey was perceived as statistically less hedonic than the rest of the products (p < 0.10) while ice cream was perceived as statistically more hedonic. The remaining four products (bagels, frozen pizza, yogurt and bread) were not statistically different from each other (p < 0.10). As such we labeled ground turkey as low hedonic, ice cream as high hedonic and the other four products as medium hedonic (see labels in Table 1). The same procedure was used for the utilitarian factor and revealed bread being perceived as highly utilitarian, ground turkey as low utilitarian and the other four products (bagels, pizza, yogurt and ice cream) as being medium utilitarian.      PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 1 78@ABI! " 7 F    "   0 we^weLe"hT^ÿqʻ[TJCq hDhMhDhM6] h<6]*hMCJOJQJ^JaJmHnHsHtH(h6?hMOJQJ^JmHnHsHtH.hl$hM5OJQJ\^JmHnHsHtH(h6?hMOJQJ^JmHnHsHtHh1$hd^h`a$gd0T+ d`gdm;dgd.mLdgd+ d`gd-7d7$8$H$`gd~CCGIJ$d`a$gd$ d`gdj1Odgd&o d`gdV.5$d`a$gdi1 d`gdi1dgdqd` $da$gd0T+ d`gdf $da$gdf788G8L8N8S8U88889%9O9W9l9q9y9B}C~CCCCD DSETEEE"F%FsG~GGGGJJJ5JZJJJJKKKKKKLLLL M MMMMNN3OFOWO]Oݿݿѿݸݿѿݱݱݱݱݱݱݿݣݿݣ h[hM h7hM hC@IhM hV$hMhV.5 hV.55\ hM5\hhh:!hMhIyB*phh\h#]B*phh#]B*phh#]@JMO6SQVcVVYY \\8\atev d`gdFH d`gd|dgd|$d`a$gd| d`gd $da$gd* d`gdW_dgdP| $da$gd$L d`gd] d`gdt d`gd7 ]O`OfO5PIPPPHQYQbQQYR{RRRRS5S6SSSSTETFTHTPU_UcVnVVVVXXXYYY#Y\YZZEZqZyZZ[ [ [[[&[[[[[\%\8\{\\\\hKhM6]h[^h0T+hM5\ h]hMhhM6] hdvhMh[hP|hM5\ hM5\hhM h57hMhV.5hM?\\\\\\\1^J^aaccccd*e,eUe\eqeBfbfkflffffgg,ggghhhjj!j"j-jejjjjjkkllll2mRmmn n nppppq q,q4qYqmqqqh# hM5\hthSh|hM6]h0T+hM5\h Oh,hhhh[^hMhKhM6] h6]Etejjpprssuw{~Xƀ) d`gdG d`gdf8 d`gdJo d`gd,, $da$gd,, d`gd'^3 $da$gd0T+ d`gdY8dgdc d`gd6qqqurrrrrrrssu+u;uBuDuEuLufuvuzuuuuvHvLvWx_xfxxxxxxxNyTyqywy~yyyyyzzzzz-z~,~~~CQc|'ijstÂ؂#Wh} h?j`h<h<6] h3hMh3hM6]h}\hSh#hMOW]g҅IvĆ׆8D`ˋ̋9;IKZ[\Ɍ͌׌، ").;Źڱڱڱڱڪh#ChMCJH*aJh#ChMCJaJ h#ChMhMCJaJhhMCJH*aJhMCJH*aJhJ!hMCJH*aJhJ!hMCJaJ h^(hMhDh+hMh} hIy:)̋ԋ"#$%+,-2;<=DKLM\ot $$Ifa$gd_$a$gd5 d`gd} ׌،  $$Ifa$gd#CFf7 $Ifgdp| $$Ifa$gdJ! $$Ifa$gdp| $$Ifa$gd_#)/45:;<DLRTVX]djpw}Ff $$Ifa$gdp| $$Ifa$gd#C;<civ|čʍ׍ݍ%17=CPQ{ԎڎBCEnޏdeÐĐǐ毧hMCJaJhp|hMCJaJhMCJH*aJh8hMCJaJh8hMCJH*aJh#ChM7CJaJhMCJaJh#ChMCJaJ h#ChM@ōˍэ؍ލFfm $$Ifa$gd#CFf &+28=DIJOPQ\djlnpu|Ff $$Ifa$gd#CŽĎƎȎΎՎێ Ff $$Ifa$gdJ!FfO $$Ifa$gd#C $$Ifa$gdp|!',6;BCdĐƐǐϐ" $Ifgd"S$a$gdrl  7$8$H$gdx$a$gd<FfG $$Ifa$gd#Cǐΐ"#+567CK!2’ÒÓûûܡhRhM6CJ]aJ h*rhMhXOhMH* hj.4hMhLhMCJaJhMCJaJhMCJH*aJh^hMH*h+AhMH* hMH* h^hMh^hM56\] hIFhMhM3"-6ELMUY]bRFF $$Ifa$gd>5$ $Ifa$gd>5kdh$$IfTl  @F4X $ t  t0  6    44 laT $$Ifa$gd"S]^js{n^RR $$Ifa$gd>5$ $Ifa$gd>5kd5$$IfTl  @F4X$ t t0  6    44 laT{|n^RR $$Ifa$gd+A$ $Ifa$gd>5kd,$$IfTl  @F4X$ t t0  6    44 laTn^RR $$Ifa$gd>5$ $Ifa$gd>5kd$$IfTl  @F4X$ t t0  6    44 laTʑґڑn^RR $$Ifa$gd>5$ $Ifa$gd>5kd$$IfTl  @F4X$ t t0  6    44 laTڑۑn^RR $$Ifa$gd>5$ $Ifa$gd>5kd$$IfTl  @F4X$ t t0  6    44 laT 37;n^RR $$Ifa$gd>5$ $Ifa$gd>5kd $$IfTl  @F4X$ t t0  6    44 laT;<OV]n^RR $$Ifa$gd>5$ $Ifa$gd>5kd!$$IfTl  @F4X$ t t0  6    44 laT]^{n^RR $$Ifa$gd>5$ $Ifa$gd>5kd"$$IfTl  @F4X$ t t0  6    44 laTn^^RR $$Ifa$gd>5$ $Ifa$gd+Akd#$$IfTl  @F4X$ t t0  6    44 laT’n^NAA9$a$gdj.4  7$8$H$gdx$  7$8$H$a$gdz$  7$8$H$a$gd+Akdt$$$IfTl  @F4X $  t  t0  6    44 laTAē˓͓̓֓ݓޓߓ $$Ifa$gdj.4 $Ifgdj.4 $Ifgdj.4$a$gdj.4ÓēՓ֓!"#$*+016789^cdijmopqr”є֔הݔޔ',-349:;̺̝̝̝̝̝̝hMCJaJhx'/hMCJaJ hx3VhMhx3VhMCJaJ *hMCJaJhMCJH*aJhMCJaJhMhRhM6>*CJ]aJhRhM6CJ]aJhM6CJ]aJ:$+17[RRFFF $$Ifa$gdj.4 $Ifgdj.4kdk%$$IfTl   \n#*     t0  *644 laT789^,## $Ifgdj.4kd&$$IfTl  \n#*  t(0  *644 lap(T^djpq+kd($$IfTl  \n#*  t0  *644 lapT $$Ifa$gdj.4qr $$Ifa$gdj.4 $Ifgdj.4є7.. $Ifgdj.4kdv)$$IfTl  \n#*  t0  *644 lapTєהޔ $$Ifa$gdj.4',## $Ifgdj.4kd*$$IfTl  \n#*  t(0  *644 lap(T'-4:;<6- $Ifgdj.4kdP,$$IfTl  \n#*  t0  *644 lapT $$Ifa$gdj.4;<mrsxy056;<ABCijk͖Ζϖі7@GעhMCJaJh$LhMCJaJhIuhMCJaJhMCJaJhIuhMCJH*aJh0jhMCJaJhM hx3VhMhx3VhMCJaJhx'/hMCJaJhMCJaJ;<msy-kd-$$IfTl  \n#*  t0  *644 lapT $$Ifa$gdj.4 $Ifgdj.4 $$Ifa$gdj.4 $Ifgdj.47.. $Ifgdj.4kd.$$IfTl  \n#*  t0  *644 lapT6- $Ifgdj.4kdJ0$$IfTl  \n#*  t0  *644 lapT $$Ifa$gdj.406<B $$Ifa$gdj.4 $Ifgdj.4BCDZ7+ $$Ifa$gd $$Ifa$gdj.4kd1$$IfTl  \n#*  t0  *644 lapTZ_dijk|QEE $$Ifa$gdj.4kd3$$IfTl  \n#* t0  *644 laT $$Ifa$gdj.4|ϖE=$a$gdj.4kdG4$$IfTl  \n#*     t0  *644 laT $$Ifa$gdj.4 $$Ifa$gd ϖЖіҖږ67H[ $$Ifa$gdK $$Ifa$gd^$a$gd$dgd8$a$gd8  7$8$H$gdx GHXZ[\lmyzŗƗ֗ח*IJVW'(Cbcop-2rvû۩ۢۢ hnzhM he,hMh3hMCJaJhMCJaJ hMH*h$LhMCJaJhMCJaJhM hKhMhKhMH*hKhMCJaJ h$LhM@[\myzn $$Ifa$gd^ $Ifgd^|kdl5$$IfTl  0*z6 P   t0   !644 laTyzŗxl $$Ifa$gd^ $Ifgd^~kd6$$IfTl  0*z6 P t0   !644 laTŗƗחxl $$Ifa$gd^ $Ifgd^~kd6$$IfTl  0*z6 P t0   !644 laTxl $$Ifa$gd^ $Ifgd^~kd7$$IfTl  0*z6 P t0   !644 laTJVxl $$Ifa$gd^ $Ifgd^~kd8$$IfTl  0*z6 P t0   !644 laTVWxl $$Ifa$gd^ $Ifgd^~kdT9$$IfTl  0*z6 P t0   !644 laTxl $$Ifa$gd^ $IfgdP|~kd:$$IfTl  0*z6 P t0   !644 laTxl $$Ifa$gd^ $IfgdAK~kd:$$IfTl  0*z6 P t0   !644 laT'xl $$Ifa$gd^ $Ifgd^~kd;$$IfTl  0*z6 P t0   !644 laT'(coxl $$Ifa$gd^ $IfgdAK~kd|<$$IfTl  0*z6 P t0   !644 laTopxl $$Ifa$gd^ $Ifgd^~kdF=$$IfTl  0*z6 P t0   !644 laT-yqqqqqqee $$Ifa$gdfc$a$gd*$a$gd$~kd>$$IfTl  0*z6 P   t0   !644 laT vw>?›Ûbcdl(/dkȝНѝҝ"#)*56=CEXY h4hM hvW8hMhvW8hM>*CJaJhvW8hMCJaJhMCJaJh3hMCJaJhMCJaJhnzhMH* hMH*hKhMCJH*aJ hnzhMhM:zn $$Ifa$gd^ $Ifgd^|kd>$$IfTl  0*6 L( !   t0  ")644 laT,8xl $$Ifa$gdAK $Ifgd^~kd?$$IfTl  0*L(X  t0  ")644 laT89p|xl $$Ifa$gd^ $Ifgd^~kd\@$$IfTl  0*L(X  t0  ")644 laT|}ʛxl $$Ifa$gd^ $Ifgd^~kd A$$IfTl  0*L(X  t0  ")644 laTʛ˛ xl $$Ifa$gd^ $Ifgd^~kdA$$IfTl  0*L(X  t0  ")644 laTcdemyqaaaaL$  $7$8$H$Ifa$gd(x$  7$8$H$a$gd(x$a$gd*$a$gdAK~kdfB$$IfTl  0*L(X    t0  ")644 laT՜Dѝ$  $7$8$H$Ifa$gd(x$  $7$8$H$Ifa$gdѝҝ۝7""$  $7$8$H$Ifa$gd(xkd"C$$IfTl  ֈ6> N"(  T  < o  t0  644 laT$  $7$8$H$Ifa$gd(x7""$  $7$8$H$Ifa$gd(xkd-D$$IfTl  ֈ6> N"(T<o t0  644 laT!"#()*/056;<$  $7$8$H$Ifa$gd$  $7$8$H$Ifa$gd(x <=EY7//$a$gdUPkdE$$IfTl  ֈ6> N"(  T  < o  t0  644 laTYZc{|jZJC$$If^a$gdUPC$$If^a$gd_xkdF$$Ifl  0*^-4   t0  .644 la$$7$8$H$Ifa$gd,, $`a$gdUPYZbcz{|ʞUVWǟȟɟʟ˟ԟٟ %1>DJmo()* /UbgɣգǵǵǵϮϮǣǣǣǣh(OhMCJaJ h]nBhMhvYhMCJaJ hvYhMhMCJaJh]nBhMCJaJ h,,hMh,,hM5\h,,hM5CJ\aJ hUPhM?Vɟvj $$Ifa$gd!$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdc8xkdG$$Ifl  0*^-4 t0  .644 laɟʟn{j$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdPD@ $$Ifa$gdPD@xkdoH$$Ifl  0*^-4 t0  .644 lano)vj $$Ifa$gd$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdUPxkd?I$$Ifl  0*^-4 t0  .644 la֣vc$d$If`a$gdUP$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdxkdJ$$Ifl  0*^-4 t0  .644 laգ֣`e| IJj~$EFGԦަ_inopqrs}קl񺰥hhCJaJh.?>h6CJ]aJh.?>hCJaJh0T+h5\ h5\hohM>*CJaJ hohMhohMCJaJ h,,hMh(OhMCJaJhMCJaJ h(OhM2Jtt$d$If`a$gdc8xkdJ$$Ifl  0*^-4 t0  .644 laF{h$d$If`a$gdts $$Ifa$gdc8xkdK$$Ifl  0*^-4 t0  .644 laFGp{h$d$If`a$gd~Y" $$Ifa$gdtsxkdL$$Ifl  0*^-4 t0  .644 lapqr}p__OO d`gd ^`gd$d`a$gddgd,,xkdOM$$Ifl  0*^-4   t0  .644 lalǨʨԨըDEHrt۫ܫLMNPz|ì߷׿ײ痍ߗ{{{ h.?>hh!~hB*phhB*]phhOXhB*]phhOXh6B*]ph h\hOXh\ hOXhhOXh6B*phhsJjhsJUhB*phhOXhB*phhh[ h6], έϭ{|45|}efµgd d`gd -DM gd ϭ#LzׯIf +,cdefg붲hOXh6]hB*\phhOXhB*\phhOXh0J(>*B*\phhsJjhsJU hOXh h.h *hhVh6] h6]hkG1h0J<h h.?>hh.?>h6]/>[{|}./CDEFGCDGITUW[cefµ׵ĿĿĿķ뷳瓉vhmHnHsHtH h(3 hh.h6] h.h h!~hhOXh6hOXh6\hsJjhsJU h\hOXh\ *h h6] hdbhhh]h hOXh h]hOXh],׵-<>CJKLMr)=ŷ "'01ĸѸӸոڸ߸CFGHȾϷϷϲόόόότόό}}}}}} huhh]Yh6 h]YhhCJOJQJ^JaJ hXghCJOJQJ^JaJ *h h6]h.?>h6] h.?>hh"h zIh6]mHnHsHtHhmHnHsHtHh^hmHnHsHtH1µLM[\Ÿnּ׼9:<= d`gd0T+ d`gdrgd dgd>gd d`gd 7$8$H$gdHIeglmotzǺȺ4568LQT`dlmnû QR h]YhhuhmHnHsHtHhmHnHsHtH"huh6]mHnHsHtHh\hB*phh]Yh6B*phhsJjhsJUhB*phh]YhB*phhhuh6] huh2ͼ!8:=F½Ƚҽu-23BGHW\ȹȹȹȮȟȟȟȟȟȟȟȟȟȟ#hc%zhM5B*CJ\aJphhc%zhMB*CJaJphhc%zhMCJaJ hO5hMh,,hM>*hMhh.h6 h.hh.h]h]Yh] h]Yhh]Yh6]7=F89u} $$Ifa$gdc%z ^`gdx\`gdx\$d`a$gdx\p___$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdc%zkdN$$IfTl  Fh    t0  6    44 laTUDDD$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdc%zkdN$$IfTl  Fh  t0  6    44 lapTUDDD$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdc%zkd P$$IfTl  Fh  t0  6    44 lapTUDDD$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdc%zkd$Q$$IfTl  Fh  t0  6    44 lapTUDDD$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdc%zkd>R$$IfTl  Fh  t0  6    44 lapTUDDD$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdc%zkdXS$$IfTl  Fh  t0  6    44 lapTJ999$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdc%zkdrT$$IfTl  Fh  t0  6    44 lapT(-2J999$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdc%zkdU$$IfTl  Fh  t0  6    44 lapT23=BGJ999$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdc%zkdV$$IfTl  Fh  t0  6    44 lapTGHRW\J999$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdc%zkdX$$IfTl  Fh  t0  6    44 lapT\]&2J>>> $$Ifa$gdc%zkd2Y$$IfTl  Fh  t0  6    44 lapT246ͼhh5mHnHuhsJjhsJUhCJaJh5jh5UhMCJaJhMhc%zhMCJaJ246pcZXXXXXXX`gdx\  7$8$H$gdc%zkdpZ$$IfTl  Fh    t0  6    44 laT `gdx\##$a$& !1$G0P&P1h:p#CBP/ =!"#$% Dp9&P1h0:p8= /!"#$% 91h0:p#CBP= /!"#$% 6&P1h:pM/ =!"#$% 5$$If!v h5T5555555F5 2 #vT#v#v#v#v#v#vF#v 2 :V l t0  -5T555555F5 2 /  / akd$$Ifl   *~ vTx",T       F 2  t0  -$$$$44 la\$$If!v h5T5555555F5 5 #vT#v#v#v#v#v#vF#v #v :V l t0  -,, 5T555555F5 5 / / akd-$$Ifl   *~ vTx"P',TF t0  -((((44 laN$$If!v h5T5555555F5 5 #vT#v#v#v#v#v#vF#v #v :V l t0  -,, 5T555555F5 5 / akd$$Ifl   *~ vTx"P',TF t0  -((((44 laN$$If!v h5T5555555F5 5 #vT#v#v#v#v#v#vF#v #v :V l t0  -,, 5T555555F5 5 / akd $$Ifl   *~ vTx"P',TF t0  -((((44 laN$$If!v h5T5555555F5 5 #vT#v#v#v#v#v#vF#v #v :V l t0  -,, 5T555555F5 5 / akd $$Ifl   *~ vTx"P',TF t0  -((((44 laN$$If!v h5T5555555F5 5 #vT#v#v#v#v#v#vF#v #v :V l t0  -,, 5T555555F5 5 / akd$$Ifl   *~ vTx"P',TF t0  -((((44 la\$$If!v h5T5555555F5 5 #vT#v#v#v#v#v#vF#v #v :V l t0  -,, 5T555555F5 5 / / akdp$$Ifl   *~ vTx"P',TF t0  -((((44 laV$$If!v h5T5555555F5 5 #vT#v#v#v#v#v#vF#v #v :V l t0  -, 5T555555F5 5 / /  akd$$Ifl   *~ vTx"P',T       F    t0  -((((44 la$$If!vh55$ 5t#v#v$ #vt:V l@ t0  6,55$ 5t/  / T$$If!vh55$ 5t#v#v$ #vt:V l@ t0  6,55$ 5t/  / / / / T$$If!vh55$ 5t#v#v$ #vt:V l@ t0  6,55$ 5t/ /  / / T$$If!vh55$ 5t#v#v$ #vt:V l@ t0  6,55$ 5t/ /  / / T$$If!vh55$ 5t#v#v$ #vt:V l@ t0  6,55$ 5t/ /  / / T$$If!vh55$ 5t#v#v$ #vt:V l@ t0  6,55$ 5t/ /  / / T$$If!vh55$ 5t#v#v$ #vt:V l@ t0  6,55$ 5t/ /  / / T$$If!vh55$ 5t#v#v$ #vt:V l@ t0  6,55$ 5t/ /  / / T$$If!vh55$ 5t#v#v$ #vt:V l@ t0  6,55$ 5t/ /  / / T$$If!vh55$ 5t#v#v$ #vt:V l@ t0  6,55$ 5t/ /  / / T$$If!vh55$ 5t#v#v$ #vt:V l@ t0  6,55$ 5t/ /  / / /  T!$$If!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l  t0  *65555/ / /  / /  / / T$$If!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l  t(0  *6,5555/ / /  / / / / p(T`$$If!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l  t0  *6,5555/ / /  / / / pT`$$If!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l  t0  *6,5555/ / /  / / / pTv$$If!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l  t(0  *6,5555/ / /  / / / p(TJ$$If!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l  t0  *6,5555/ / /  / / / pTJ$$If!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l  t0  *6,5555/ / /  / / / pT`$$If!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l  t0  *6,5555/ / /  / / / pTJ$$If!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l  t0  *6,5555/ / /  / / / pT|$$If!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l  t0  *6,5555/ / / /  / / / / pT1$$If!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l t0  *6,5555/ / / /  / / / / T#$$If!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l t0  *6,5555/ / /  / / / /  T$$If!vh5P5#vP#v:V l t0   !65P5/  / aT$$If!vh5P5#vP#v:V l t0   !6,5P5/ / / / aT$$If!vh5P5#vP#v:V l t0   !6,5P5/ / / aT$$If!vh5P5#vP#v:V l t0   !6,5P5/ / / aT$$If!vh5P5#vP#v:V l t0   !6,5P5/ / / aT$$If!vh5P5#vP#v:V l t0   !6,5P5/ / / aT$$If!vh5P5#vP#v:V l t0   !6,5P5/ / / aT$$If!vh5P5#vP#v:V l t0   !6,5P5/ / / aT$$If!vh5P5#vP#v:V l t0   !6,5P5/ / / aT$$If!vh5P5#vP#v:V l t0   !6,5P5/ / / aT$$If!vh5P5#vP#v:V l t0   !6,5P5/ / / aT$$If!vh5P5#vP#v:V l t0   !6,5P5/ / / /  aT$$If!vh5 !5#v !#v:V l t0  ")6,5 !5/  / aT$$If!vh5X 5#vX #v:V l t0  ")6,5X 5/ / aT$$If!vh5X 5#vX #v:V l t0  ")6,5X 5/ aT$$If!vh5X 5#vX #v:V l t0  ")6,5X 5/ aT$$If!vh5X 5#vX #v:V l t0  ")6,5X 5/ aT$$If!vh5X 5#vX #v:V l t0  ")6,5X 5/ /  aT $$If!vh555T55<5o#v#v#vT#v#v<#vo:V l t0  6,555T55<5o/  / TU$$If!vh555T55<5o#v#v#vT#v#v<#vo:V l t0  6,,555T55<5o/ / / / / / / TO$$If!vh555T55<5o#v#v#vT#v#v<#vo:V l t0  6,555T55<5o/ / /  / / / /  T$$If!vh545#v4#v:V l t0  .6545/ /  / / a$$If!vh545#v4#v:V l t0  .6,545/ / / / a$$If!vh545#v4#v:V l t0  .6,545/ / / / a$$If!vh545#v4#v:V l t0  .6,545/ / / / a$$If!vh545#v4#v:V l t0  .6,545/ / / / a$$If!vh545#v4#v:V l t0  .6,545/ / / / a$$If!vh545#v4#v:V l t0  .6,545/ / / / a$$If!vh545#v4#v:V l t0  .6,545/ / / / a$$If!vh545#v4#v:V l t0  .6,545/ / / /  a$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t0  6555/  / T&$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l  t0  6,555/  / / / / pT$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l  t0  6,555/  / / / pT$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l  t0  6,555/  / / / pT$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l  t0  6,555/  / / / pT$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l  t0  6,555/  / / / pT.$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l  t0  6,555/  / / / pT.$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l  t0  6,555/  / / / pT.$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l  t0  6,555/  / / / pT.$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l  t0  6,555/  / / / pT<$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l  t0  6,555/  / / / / pT$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t0  6555/  / / / /  T^H 77777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777772 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~_HmH nH sH tH @`@ YTNormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH HH m;0 Heading 1$dhL@&6]\@\ m;0 Heading 2$<@& 56CJOJQJ\]^JaJVV m;0 Heading 3$<@&5CJOJQJ\^JaJ>> m;0 Heading 4 $@&a$6]88 m;0 Heading 5 $@&^>> m;0 Heading 6 $@&^6]BB m;0 Heading 7$@&^`P6]L@L 0 Heading 8 $@&a$56CJ\]aJP P 0 Heading 9 $@&a$56>*CJ\]aJDA`D Default Paragraph FontRi@R 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k ( 0No List BB m;0Heading 1 Char6CJ]aJTT m;0Heading 2 Char 56CJOJQJ\]^JaJNN m;0Heading 3 Char5CJOJQJ\^JaJB!B m;0Heading 4 Char6CJ]aJ<1< m;0Heading 5 CharCJaJBAB m;0Heading 6 Char6CJ]aJBQB m;0Heading 7 Char6CJ]aJHaH 0Heading 8 Char56CJ\]aJLqL  0Heading 9 Char56>*CJ\]aJj j 80 Table Grid7:V0>> ?n0 Footnote TextCJaJ<< m;0Footnote Text Char@&@ ?n0Footnote ReferenceH*FC@F >0Body Text Indent dh`JJ m;0Body Text Indent CharCJaJ2B@2 j.40 Body Textx<< j.40Body Text CharCJaJPS@P !m;0Body Text Indent 3 ^`0CJaJNN  m;0Body Text Indent 3 CharCJaJJ"J m;0 Body Text 21"d1$`CJaJ> @2> $m;0Footer#!1$CJaJ.A. #m;0 Footer Char6)Q6 m;0 Page NumberCJaJ>@b> 'm;0Header&!1$CJaJ.q. &m;0 Header Char6U@6 m;0 Hyperlink >*B*ph.X. m;0Emphasis6]*W* m;0Strong5\>*> m;0Endnote ReferenceH*<+< -m;0 Endnote Text,CJaJ:: ,m;0Endnote Text CharHH /m;0 Balloon Text.CJOJQJ^JaJNN .m;0Balloon Text CharCJOJQJ^JaJR^R m;0 Normal (Web)0dd[$\$OJPJQJ^JNPN 2m;0 Body Text 2 1dha$5OJQJ\^JR!R 1m;0Body Text 2 Char5CJOJQJ\^JaJ,1, m;0italic16](A( m;0bold15\B'QB m;0Comment ReferenceCJaJ<b< 7m;0 Comment Text6CJaJ:q: 6m;0Comment Text Char@jab@ 9m;0Comment Subject85\FrF 8m;0Comment Subject Char5\>> m;0 citation1CJOJ QJ ^J aJ.. m;0 hithighlite8O8 m;0 medium-font1CJaJ@@ m;0 title-link1B*CJaJphDZ@D ?m;0 Plain Text>CJOJ QJ ^J aJBB >m;0Plain Text Char OJ QJ ^J ,, m;0 definition$$ m;0rubric&!& m;0doctype<@2< ]nB0List ParagraphC^D BDu0RevisionDCJ_HaJmH sH tH XQX 10 csfield^systemvariable^4015^page(a( 10default1>r> YdateGdd[$\$ mHsHtHPK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi};~@(Hu* Dנz/0ǰ $ X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!-Rk.sԻ..a濭?PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6w toc'vuر-MniP@I}úama[إ4:lЯGRX^6؊>$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3ڗP 1Pm \\9Mؓ2aD];Yt\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] ̃Ҏr  I   ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,/0 ^y 7]O\qW;ǐÓ;GvYգl׵Hdfghjlnoqrv{~0Jte)"]{ڑ;]7^qє'<BZ|ϖ[yŗV'o8|ʛѝ<YɟnFpµ=2G\2eikmpstuwxyz|}~ԠDۣL +c.CFCTDz4XXXXXX&(/!L# AA@0(  B S  ?\,%]d?^?_Drkk߄߄kkB*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace _jӘDU;(j%ǫOz n"@Q \odPLy5&v*<N5+xdh)/k2m0B3 A#2` F]}JNي 0\ P2RdK^TB6YZYVnv@_R-gDlw_kJ2}&{rD= sO2wJPnxLh^`o()^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.^`OJQJ^Jo(^`OJ QJ ^J o(opp^p`OJ QJ ^J o(@ @ ^@ `OJQJ^Jo(^`OJ QJ ^J o(o^`OJ QJ ^J o(^`OJQJ^Jo(^`OJ QJ ^J o(oPP^P`OJ QJ ^J o(88^8`o()^`. L ^ `L.  ^ `.xx^x`.HLH^H`L.^`.^`.L^`L.^`OJQJ^Jo(^`OJ QJ ^J o(opp^p`OJ QJ ^J o(@ @ ^@ `OJQJ^Jo(^`OJ QJ ^J o(o^`OJ QJ ^J o(^`OJQJ^Jo(^`OJ QJ ^J o(oPP^P`OJ QJ ^J o(^`o(.^`.pL^p`L.@ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PL^P`L.^`OJQJ^Jo(" ^`OJQJ^Jo(" pp^p`OJQJ^Jo(" @ @ ^@ `OJQJ^Jo(" ^`OJQJ^Jo(" ^`OJQJ^Jo(" ^`OJQJ^Jo(" ^`OJQJ^Jo(" PP^P`OJQJ^Jo(" hh^h`OJQJ^Jo(88^8`OJ QJ ^J o(o^`OJ QJ ^J o(  ^ `OJQJ^Jo(  ^ `OJ QJ ^J o(oxx^x`OJ QJ ^J o(HH^H`OJQJ^Jo(^`OJ QJ ^J o(o^`OJ QJ ^J o(^`OJQJ^Jo(" ^`OJQJ^Jo(" pp^p`OJQJ^Jo(" @ @ ^@ `OJQJ^Jo(" ^`OJQJ^Jo(" ^`OJQJ^Jo(" ^`OJQJ^Jo(" ^`OJQJ^Jo(" PP^P`OJQJ^Jo(" 88^8`OJ QJ ^J o(^`OJ QJ ^J o(o  ^ `OJ QJ ^J o(  ^ `OJQJ^Jo(xx^x`OJ QJ ^J o(oHH^H`OJ QJ ^J o(^`OJQJ^Jo(^`OJ QJ ^J o(o^`OJ QJ ^J o(hh^h`OJQJ^Jo(88^8`OJ QJ ^J o(o^`OJ QJ ^J o(  ^ `OJQJ^Jo(  ^ `OJ QJ ^J o(oxx^x`OJ QJ ^J o(HH^H`OJQJ^Jo(^`OJ QJ ^J o(o^`OJ QJ ^J o(88^8`o()^`. L ^ `L.  ^ `.xx^x`.HLH^H`L.^`.^`.L^`L.^`CJOJQJ^JaJo(^`CJOJ QJ ^J aJo(opp^p`CJOJ QJ ^J aJo(@ @ ^@ `CJOJ QJ ^J aJo(^`CJOJ QJ ^J aJo(^`CJOJ QJ ^J aJo(^`CJOJ QJ ^J aJo(^`CJOJ QJ ^J aJo(PP^P`CJOJ QJ ^J aJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(" ^`OJQJ^Jo(" pp^p`OJQJ^Jo(" @ @ ^@ `OJQJ^Jo(" ^`OJQJ^Jo(" ^`OJQJ^Jo(" ^`OJQJ^Jo(" ^`OJQJ^Jo(" PP^P`OJQJ^Jo(" `OJQJ^Jo(`OJQJ^Jo(^`OJ QJ ^J o(pp^p`OJQJ^Jo(@ @ ^@ `OJ QJ ^J o(o^`OJ QJ ^J o(^`OJQJ^Jo(^`OJ QJ ^J o(o^`OJ QJ ^J o(^`)^`OJ QJ ^J o(opp^p`OJ QJ ^J o(@ @ ^@ `OJQJ^Jo(^`OJ QJ ^J o(o^`OJ QJ ^J o(^`OJQJ^Jo(^`OJ QJ ^J o(oPP^P`OJ QJ ^J o(^`OJQJ^Jo(^`OJ QJ ^J o(opp^p`OJ QJ ^J o(@ @ ^@ `OJQJ^Jo(^`OJ QJ ^J o(o^`OJ QJ ^J o(^`OJQJ^Jo(^`OJ QJ ^J o(oPP^P`OJ QJ ^J o(^`OJQJ^Jo(pp^p`OJ QJ ^J o(o@ @ ^@ `OJ QJ ^J o(^`OJQJ^Jo(^`OJ QJ ^J o(o^`OJ QJ ^J o(^`OJQJ^Jo(PP^P`OJ QJ ^J o(o  ^ `OJ QJ ^J o(88^8`o()^`. L ^ `L.  ^ `.xx^x`.HLH^H`L.^`.^`.L^`L.h^h`o(.8^8`.L^`L. ^ `. ^ `.xL^x`L.H^H`.^`.L^`L.hh^h`OJQJ^Jo(88^8`OJ QJ ^J o(o^`OJQJ^Jo(  ^ `OJQJ^Jo(  ^ `OJ QJ ^J o(oxx^x`OJ QJ ^J o(HH^H`OJQJ^Jo(^`OJ QJ ^J o(o^`OJ QJ ^J o(^`OJQJ^Jo(pp^p`OJ QJ ^J o(o@ @ ^@ `OJ QJ ^J o(^`OJQJ^Jo(^`OJ QJ ^J o(o^`OJ QJ ^J o(^`OJQJ^Jo(PP^P`OJ QJ ^J o(o  ^ `OJ QJ ^J o(^`OJQJ^Jo(" ^`OJQJ^Jo(" pp^p`OJQJ^Jo(" @ @ ^@ `OJQJ^Jo(" ^`OJQJ^Jo(" ^`OJQJ^Jo(" ^`OJQJ^Jo(" ^`OJQJ^Jo(" PP^P`OJQJ^Jo(" ^`OJQJ^Jo(^`OJ QJ ^J o(op^p`OJ QJ ^J o(@ ^@ `OJQJ^Jo(^`OJ QJ ^J o(o^`OJ QJ ^J o(^`OJQJ^Jo(^`OJ QJ ^J o(oP^P`OJ QJ ^J o(88^8`o()^`. L ^ `L.  ^ `.xx^x`.HLH^H`L.^`.^`.L^`L.^`OJQJ^Jo(" ^`OJQJ^Jo(" pp^p`OJQJ^Jo(" @ @ ^@ `OJQJ^Jo(" ^`OJQJ^Jo(" ^`OJQJ^Jo(" ^`OJQJ^Jo(" ^`OJQJ^Jo(" PP^P`OJQJ^Jo(" ^`OJ QJ ^J o(pp^p`OJ QJ ^J o(o@ @ ^@ `OJ QJ ^J o(^`OJQJ^Jo(^`OJ QJ ^J o(o^`OJ QJ ^J o(^`OJQJ^Jo(PP^P`OJ QJ ^J o(o  ^ `OJ QJ ^J o(^`o()^`. L ^ `L.  ^ `.xx^x`.HLH^H`L.^`.^`.L^`L.nx%o&{r^TA#2j]}JP2wZYy5&U;(@_N5+ sm0-gQ 0\ P2RO)/6Y_k                   z,                          6'pxΑZ~;         x>ڜ6tKH4\                  B#         ߘYl:4.dh { 66**J                                    r}                                   Ϩ]f$n37.p$L ؒb#t         z"        (}8C/:6q@@ nv+'         ³        t o6l{Q2t o6wI]EwIdILdILdILdILdILdIL"dILdIL!dIL dILdIL!dILdIL"dILdIL \UI$^I$^l{Q2 !5FP y57bnC3gW&&oq";:eJo3  I, (3 W =t  9 !G%*~+FjO#RVJ!67Wh4l$Bn+a6dTu'."~:>Dhrs`vYp~ Mgm% [  ! !({!"$6"~Y";c#V$h$7%h%&]&o'q((c)(^(0T+,,,Db,4u,.%.x'/Y 1:>1kG1cP23*3G3'^3\|3j.4V.5>5-7 8B8vW8c8f8c::;G;E<'n=>'>?PD@Q#A+AeA|AB.B]nB#CBC;nE[F?FGG{HC@I zIsJK[oK.mLMM2bMNj1O=POPUPjQjRrR[S%GTYT(tT}UVx3V6JW^Y^Y@AZTAZeqZx1\}\\]X]#][^a-_';_@_T_W_`)X`?j` ?a{a^bcbdbfcoctcgdud\Yef\g2gXg-hKh?i!i0j,k]krlm(nSn#oBo?]orpr r{GMF]Yp*8(O^Ok?n7&S1ELJIe,d5 l RTfzAZ? !2/c[}Arbz)HL-L Oqt[ $M*r!OSr'Y3IFGuvyc"Mp(6+5Q|@(]]X@XX@Unknown G* Times New Roman5Symbol3. * Arial] AdvPS405B8Times New Roman] AdvPS405B6Times New Roman7K@Cambria5. *aTahomaI. ??Arial Unicode MSEEuclidBell MT7.  Verdana?= * Courier New;WingdingsA BCambria Math"1YKYKcsæYaXYaX!02H $P82! xxXMcIntire School of Commerce Administratorx                      Oh+'0 (4 T ` l xXMcIntire School of Commerce Normal.dotmAdministrator2Microsoft Office Word@@[@> @> YG@VT$m M &" WMFCr 8O8olVT$m EMF8og $("   Rp@Times New Roman" &#P`2&" l$%O`2&" jEU1"& purchase promotions, trial  2  behavior, )2 purchase incidence  2  \ 2 z \2 7Y Paper type 2 7:\ 2 7 \ 2 7Research paper  2 7 \ @Times New Roman--@Times New Roman---"System--՜.+,D՜.+,l( hp  University of VirginiaXa X Abstract Title Headingsl  8@ _PID_HLINKSA$ $uhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W5D-4GY884K-3&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=article&_cdi=6568&_sort=v&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=8&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f745a290be920799e33bcd5c8b966013Nr http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236568%232007%23999169997%23647735%23FLA%23&_cdi=6568&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cd3880f6420c8b5e1fed11ff3afe4177C 6http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00224359&http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VGN-47FDGF0-3&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=article&_cdi=6043&_sort=v&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=97&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e0639ef4cb9bea4599be77b3f0134b3dCnhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VGN-4R8M996-1&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=article&_cdi=6043&_sort=v&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=194&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c28f706061e5d03b77ab68d48a365473V"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VGN-44VG223-1&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=article&_cdi=6043&_sort=v&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=416&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e21619ddf4773255f3477efc17c7747c  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry Fe Data ][1Table~WordDocument SummaryInformation(IDocumentSummaryInformation8MsoDataStoreNc Nc QXKJVNE2MQAGQ==2Nc Nc Item  PropertiesUCompObj y   F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q