Loading article...
Loading article...
Stream/Area:
-
Subject:
-
Paper ID:
10.55041/IJSREM58514
Volume:
10 |
3 |
Mar 2026
Pages:
Publication Frequency:
Monthly (12 issues per year)
License:International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License, allowing free use and distribution with proper attribution.
In the highly competitive Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) and retail sectors, pricing serves as a direct psychological language communicating value to consumers. The specific format in which a price is presented—such as a percentage discount, bundle offer, or absolute cash reduction—significantly influences product evaluation and brand choice. A quantitative, descriptive research design was used in this study. Stratified random sampling was used to ensure representative diversity in the primary data collection process, which involved distributing structured online surveys to consumers in urban and semi-urban areas who were at least 18 years old. Young, independent contractors and freelancers between the ages of 21 and 26 made up the majority of the sample, which represented a very practical customer base. According to 47.3% of respondents, “Buy 1 Get 1 Free” (BOGO) is the most appealing format, indicating a strong consumer preference for volume-based promotions. Additionally, 45.5% of respondents acknowledged that they relied on the visual cues of percentage discount signs rather than computing the final unit price, demonstrating a “math-lazy” paradox. Customers are willing to pay a higher total price to obtain a free item, prioritizing product volume over instant cash savings. Restrictive formats like forced bulk bundles and membership pricing actively discourage brand switching, with 42.1% rejecting bundle deals, while transparent comparative pricing fosters trust (favored by 41.1%). In the end, small discounts don’t work; a significant threshold of 26% to 50% is needed to effectively cause brand switching.
KEYWORDS
Publication Date
3/29/2026
Peer Review Type
Double-Blind Peer Review
Review Rounds: 2
Documents
Article Views
1
Total views since publication
PDF Downloads
4
Total downloads since publication
Geographic Reach
5
Digital Preservation: This article is permanently archived on Zenodo and complies with all data preservation standards across major indexing platforms.
Plagiarism Screening
This manuscript has been checked for plagiarism using TurnitinPlagiarismChecker software.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this research work.
Funding Information
No funding information available for this research.
Related research in the same subject area
Loading similar articles...