ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 169–176

www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

The effectiveness of verbal prompts on sales

Claus Ebstera,, Udo Wagnera, Sabine Valisb
a
Department of Marketing, University of Vienna, Bruenner Strasse 72, A-1210 Vienna, Austria
b
Erste Bank der oesterreichischen, Sparkassen AG, Austria

Abstract

The effectiveness of verbal prompts and prompting conditions on sales as well as the impact of the product ordered on the
effectiveness of suggestive selling are investigated in this study. In a field experiment in two fast food restaurants, customers are
exposed to suggestive selling, receiving differently worded prompts depending on the assigned experimental condition. Results show
that in all treatment conditions, prompts lead to increased sales over the control group. Whereas no difference in sales is observed
among the treatment groups, prompts in general are shown to be more effective in triggering the ordering of side dishes when used in
conjunction with atypical main dishes recently added to the menu and when there is a fit between the main and the side dish.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Prompting; Suggestive selling; Sales promotion

1. Introduction the employees delivering scripted purchase suggestions

Customer: A hamburger and a medium coke, please.
Sales clerk: Do you want fries with that?
While customers might not always appreciate it when
a sales clerk responds to an order by suggesting a related
item, such sales interactions seem to have become
commonplace in many fast food restaurants.
In saturated markets, in addition to acquiring new
customers, marketers have been concentrating on
increasing sales among their existing customers, en-
couraging them to buy more, to buy more often or to
buy additional items. A sales promotion strategy
frequently mentioned in practitioners’ literature is
suggestive selling. This practice is defined as making a
suggestion to potential buyers that they might have
additional needs related to what has already been
purchased (Rosenberg, 1995).
Suggestive selling has been used in financial services
(Andrews, 1999), retailing (D’Aversa-Williams, 2001)
and catalog marketing (Lauderbaugh, 2002). Although
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: claus.ebster@univie.ac.at (C. Ebster).
might occasionally resent having to ‘‘push’’ products on
their customers, as the suggestions made could come
across as insincere or inappropriate (Leidner, 1993),
anecdotal evidence suggests that suggestive selling can
be a very effective method in increasing sales. In 1987,
Martinko and, in 1989 Martinko, White, and Hassell
demonstrated that suggestive selling could effectively
increase sales. However, since then, little has been
published on the effectiveness of suggestive selling in
academic consumer behavior literature.
As a result, this paper aims to examine the effective-
ness of suggestive selling in fast food restaurants. Not
only is the general effectiveness of suggestive selling
investigated, but its use in conjunction with a variety of
products as well as the effectiveness of different
suggestion wordings is also examined. Furthermore,
the potential influence of descriptive variables (e.g.
gender and age of the customer, time of visit to the fast
food restaurant, and location of the restaurant) is
considered. Finally, given that the origin of this study
is Austria and most practitioners’ reports on the
effectiveness of this promotional technique originate
from the US, it is also intended to assess whether

0969-6989/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2005.08.003
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
170 C. Ebster et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 169–176
suggestive selling can effectively be implemented in a
cultural context outside the USA.
2. Theoretical background to suggestive selling
A conceptual background to suggestive selling can be
found in operant psychology, a theoretical approach
which has received renewed interest from consumer
researchers in recent years (Foxall, 2002). Operant
psychology focuses on directly observable behavior
and was first introduced to a broader group of market-
ing researchers by Nord and Peter (1980) under the
name of ‘‘behavior modification perspective’’. A basic
assumption of operant conditioning is that people learn
by producing changes in their environment.
A central tenant of operant psychology is the
antecedent–behavior–consequence (ABC) model. Ante-
cedent stimuli (A) trigger behavior (B), which is
followed by positive or negative consequences (C).
These in turn influence the probability that this behavior
will recur in the future (Skinner, 1969). According to the
‘‘law of effects’’ (Thorndike, 1911), if a behavior results
in positive consequences, it will be repeated more
frequently in the future. If followed by negative
consequences, the likelihood of recurrence decreases.
For example, in a fast food restaurant, antecedent
stimuli—such as product displays, flyers, and recom-
mendations from accompanying friends—might trigger
customers to order a side dish. The customer’s satisfac-
tion or dissatisfaction with the taste as well as a number
of other consumption related factors determine the
likelihood that the individual will reorder this side dish
in the future.
Prompts are a special type of antecedent stimuli, i.e.
supplemental stimuli that help to initiate a desired
behavior (Touchette and Howard, 1984). The desired
response can be prompted in different ways. In a sales
situation, gestural, physical, environmental and verbal
prompts can be used. For example, to stimulate sales in
a fast food restaurant, the salespersons could point to a
dessert (gestural prompt) or hold a dessert tray in the
customer’s direction (physical prompt). Illuminated
boards over the sales counter and displays offering
‘‘specials’’ are examples of environmental prompts
frequently used in fast food restaurants. When the staff
in fast food restaurants offers customers items related to
their original order, such as fries to go with a burger
(cross-selling) or larger sizes (upselling), these sugges-
tions can be considered verbal prompts.
Verbal prompts were successfully used in social
marketing to increase blood donations (Ferrari et al.,
1985) and to encourage drivers to wear seatbelts
(Engerman et al., 1997). In a services marketing context,
verbal prompts were found to improve appointment
keeping in a pediatric clinic (Friman et al., 1985).
Furthermore, verbal prompts were shown to increase
sales of food and drinks in restaurants (Martinko, 1987;
Martinko et al., 1989). Therefore, prompts might also be
effective when cross-selling side dishes in a fast food
restaurant. This leads us to propose Hypothesis 1:
H1. The use of verbal prompts increases sales of side
dishes.
The specific wording of verbal prompts was found to
be of particular importance in their effectiveness
(Feeney et al., 1982). From informal discussions with
managers and staff of fast food restaurants, we
concluded that the effectiveness of prompting can be
increased if prompts are delivered in a ‘‘forced choice’’
question, i.e. customers are prompted to order either
one product or another. Support for the proposition
that forced choice questions might lead to greater
compliance with the request also comes from the
‘‘mindlessness principle’’ proposed by Langer et al.
(1978). They found that for trivial, non-demanding
requests, subjects avoid investing cognitive efforts and
rely strongly on general knowledge structures. It is
assumed that people are put into a state of mindlessness
primarily in routine conversations that have frequently
occurred in the past (Langer & Moldoveanu, 2000).
Therefore, by wording prompts in a forced choice
question format, consumers might feel obliged to choose
one of two alternatives, resulting in more orders of the
prompted product, as stated in Hypothesis 2:
H2. The use of forced-choice verbal prompts is more
effective in increasing the sales of side dishes than the
use of regular verbal prompts.
It seems probable that not only the wording of the
prompts, but also the product that the customers are
prompted to consider influence the effectiveness of
prompting to a greater extent. We hypothesized that
prompting would be more successful if the product
prompted (i.e. the side dish) has a good fit with the main
dish ordered. For example, in Austria, schnitzels
(breaded pork/veal cutlets) are a national dish usually
served with potato salad or fries. However, in Austria,
unlike in the US, sandwiches are considered a light
snack and are not usually served with a side dish.
Accordingly, Hypothesis 3 states:
H3. Prompting side dishes is more effective when
consumers see a fit between the main dish and the
side dish.
Prompting is assumed to be a behavioral method used
to initiate a behavior not previously shown (Kazdin,
1994). Therefore, it might be more effective to prompt
customers to order a side dish with their main dish, if the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Ebster et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 169–176
main dish is a new addition to the menu rather than a
dish traditionally ordered in a specific (type of)
restaurant. The idea that prompting might be more
effective when used in conjunction with dishes that
customers are unlikely to have received previous
prompting for, is supported by correspondent-inference
theory (Jones and McGillis, 1976). This theory, which
has been used by consumer researchers to explain some
of the effects of price promotions (Lichtenstein et al.,
1991), states that consumers are more likely to process
and elaborate information when it is unexpected or
unusual. When an event is unexpected, customers can no
longer assimilate it into their existing knowledge
structures, which may lead them to consciously examine
their previous assumptions (Försterling, 2001). This
might happen, for example, when a customer orders a
newly added item, such as a vegetarian dish for the first
time, and is consequently prompted for the first time to
order a side dish with this meal. According to
correspondent-inference theory, behavioral observations
are unexpected when the information is inconsistent
with previous information or when it is distinct from
other current information (Jones and McGillis, 1976).
Consequently, restaurant patrons might respond more
positively to suggestive selling when it is unlikely that
they have been previously prompted to order a side dish
with a specific main dish, or when they order a main dish
not usually offered in a specific restaurant category.
Accordingly, Hypothesis 4 states:
H4. Prompting side dishes is more effective in increasing
sales of side dishes when the main dishes are less familiar
to customers in a restaurant.
Further support for this hypothesis comes from the
concept of perceived risk (Bauer, 1960), a customer’s
subjective anticipation of loss from a product that does
not provide all expected benefits (Roselius, 1971;
Sweeney et al., 1999). Ordering an unfamiliar main dish
or a main dish one has not tried in a restaurant might be
somewhat risky for a restaurant patron. Ordering a side
dish known to the customer together with the unfamiliar
main dish might lower perceived risk as the customer is
at least familiar with the taste and quality of the side
dish, thereby increasing the likelihood of purchase upon
exposure to a verbal prompt.
3. Method
3.1. Research setting
In order to test the above hypotheses, an empirical
research project was undertaken. We decided to use a
causal design, and observation as the data collection
method. A field experiment was conducted in an
171
Austrian fast food restaurant chain, specializing in a
variety of schnitzels, but also serving sandwiches and
chicken nuggets. Two weeks prior to the experiment,
vegetarian and fish dishes, two product categories not
offered by most Austrian fast food restaurants, were
added to the menu. Data were collected over a period of
2 weeks in two branches of the chain. One was located in
the food court of a shopping mall in a large city with a
population of approximately 1,750,000, the other on the
main street of a small town with approximately 10,000
inhabitants. Prior to the experiment, suggestive selling
had not been used by the restaurant chain.
3.2. Design and procedure
Before starting the experiment, the sales clerks of the
two participating restaurants were trained in delivering
the prompts to the customers. They were informed of
the general nature of the experiment, but were blind
to the specific hypotheses being tested.
An after-only with control group design was chosen.
Participants were assigned to one of four experimental
situations based on the sequence of their arrival at the
counter. Successive groups of ten customers ordering one
of the main dishes offered (schnitzel, fish, vegetarian
dishes, chicken nuggets, sandwiches) were assigned to one
experimental condition. After having served the tenth
customer, the next experimental condition came into effect.
In experimental condition 1 (EG 1), customers were
prompted to order potato salad with their main course.
The wording of the suggestion was: ‘‘Would you like
potato salad with that?’’ In experimental condition 2
(EG 2), they were prompted to order fries. Customers
were asked: ‘‘Would you like fries with that?’’ In
condition 3 (EG 3), a forced-choice question format
was used to prompt the ordering of a side dish: ‘‘Would
you like potato salad with that or would you prefer
fries?’’ In condition 4, the control group (CG), no
prompts were used at all.
In order to determine the effectiveness of prompting
by mere comparison of the experimental and control
groups, suggestions to order a side dish were only used
when patrons did not request it themselves, i.e. not all
customers within the experimental groups were exposed
to prompting.
Data were collected at lunch time (11:30 a.m.–2:00
p.m.) and at dinner time (6:00 p.m.–10:00 p.m.). In both
restaurants, there was only one cash desk, where
customers ordered and paid for their food. An
unobtrusive experimenter stood to one side, using
differently colored cards to signal which experimental
treatment the restaurant employee should adopt. The
cards were attached to a rolodex-like device (visible only
to the employee) and flipped to indicate a change in
the experimental condition after ten customers. The
experimenter recorded the main and side dishes ordered,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
172 C. Ebster et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 169–176
as well as the time of the sales interaction (lunch or
dinner time) on a standardized observational form. The
customer’s gender was also recorded and judgment was
used to classify customers as children (below the age of
16) or adults. The customers were only observed but not
interviewed in order to ensure an unobtrusive purchase
situation and to exclude socially desirable response
behavior.
4. Results
4.1. Effectiveness of verbal prompts—H1
The four groups were balanced with respect to
location, time and size (each group contained 540
observations). A total of 2160 sales transactions were
recorded in the course of the experiment, of which 1589
customers (74%) ordered side dishes with their main
courses. The greatest percentage of customers ordering
side dishes (79%) was in experimental group 1 (potato
salad prompt), followed by 78% in experimental group
3 (potato salad and fries prompt) and 77% in
experimental group 2 (fries prompt) (see Table 1).
To investigate Hypothesis 1, the data from column 2
in Table 1 were used (i.e. experimental groups were
pooled into a single category EG). The w2-test rejected
independence between the experimental variable and the
number of ‘‘side dishes ordered’’ (^w2 ¼ 59:1, 1 degree-of-
freedom, which corresponds to a p-level less than 0.01).
This result is in line with intuitive interpretation of the
data and clearly supports H1: prompted customers
order side dishes more often, i.e. sales increased by a
magnitude of about 17 percentage points.
4.2. Effectiveness of different prompting conditions—H2
Hypothesis 2 was analyzed by concentrating on the
results of the three different experimental conditions
(data from column 3, rows 3 to 5 in Table 1). The w2-test
did not reject independence between the experimental
variable and the number of ‘‘side dishes ordered’’
(^w2 ¼ 0:9, 2 degrees of freedom, which corresponds to
a p-level greater than 0.1). This result is consistent with
visual inspection of the data. Thus, the specific format of
a verbal prompt, open or forced-choice question does
Table 1
Number/percentages of respondents ordering side dishes
CG: no prompt 329/61%
EG: prompt 1260/78% 427/79%
414/77%
419/78%
1589/74%
not appear to influence their effectiveness. Therefore,
customers belonging to all three experimental groups
were pooled into a single category called ‘experimental
group’ (EG) for subsequent analyses.
4.3. Further descriptive analysis of the data
In the previous section, it has already been argued
that, besides prompting, there are a number of other
potential influences on the probability of ordering a side
dish. Preliminary examination of the situation at hand
established ‘type of main dish ordered’ and ‘age of
customer’ to be of relevance, the other variables being of
minor (‘location of the restaurant’) or no importance
(‘gender’, ‘time’). Looking at Fig. 1, four observations
are apparent.
(i) There is a consistent effect of the treatment
variable. The percentages of side dishes ordered in
the experimental group exceed the corresponding
numbers for the control group in all cases.
(ii) The type of main dish chosen matters. The five
different options vary with respect to the frequency
of side dishes ordered. There are two extreme cases.
On the one hand, it is very popular to eat schnitzel
with a side dish; while quite the opposite situation is
evident for sandwiches, which seem to be preferred
without accompaniment. Focusing on the results
for the control group only, approximately the same
number of patrons order side dishes with fish (69%)
as with chicken nuggets (65%).
(iii) Besides these disparities in magnitude, there is an
impact on the effectiveness of prompting depending
on the main dish chosen. This can be verified by
looking at the differences between the percentages
of EG and CG (these numbers are shown in Fig. 1).
With the vegetarian dish, for example, about a
31-percentage point difference is found, whereas
with chicken nuggets there is a 6-percentage point
difference. Consequently, if analyzing the odds of
ordering a side dish (versus not ordering a side dish)
and comparing the odds for the two categories of
the treatment variable (e.g. for the vegetarian dish),
a score of 3.6, i.e. (66/(100
66))/(35/(100
35))
results. In both cases prompting is found to be less
effective for chicken nuggets and sandwiches.
Group size
540
EG 1: potato salad prompt 540
EG 2: fries prompt 540
EG 3: potato salad and fries prompt 540
2160
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Ebster et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 169–176
Fig. 1. Differences in percentages between experimental group and control group.
(iv) The frequencies of side dishes ordered vary by age.
Adults consume side dishes more often than
children do.
4.4. Logistic regression analysis
In Sections 4.1 and 4.2, only two variables at a time
were studied by means of cross-tabulations. Section 4.3
has shown that other influences (e.g. age, main dish
chosen) should be considered as well, and therefore,
given the categorical character of the data, multiway
frequency analysis was applied. Since the ‘‘number of
side dishes’’ ordered is considered a dependent variable,
logistic regression offers a convenient way to analyze the
data. Therefore, a log-linear model is postulated to
describe how ‘‘prompting’’, ‘‘age’’ and ‘‘main dish
chosen’’ influence the probability of ordering a side
dish. Because of observation (iii) in Section 4.3, the
second-order effect /experimental stimulusmain
dishS was additionally included. In mathematical terms,
the model can be written as follows:
! Furthermore, as there are only two observed cell
Sd^ jkl
ln
1
S d^ jkl
¼ const þ lEX j þ lAk þ lMDl þ lEX j nMDl þ ujkl
with
S d^jkl estimated probability (percentage) that a side
dish is ordered for cell (j, k, l);
173
lEX j effect of the experimental stimulus
results are given in a relative sense, i.e. with
respect to the reference category control group
(lEX CG ¼ 0); je{EG, CG};
lA k effect of age
results are given in a relative sense, i.e.
with respect to the reference category child
(lAchild ¼ 0); ke {adult, child};
lMDl effect of the main dish chosen
results are given in a relative sense, i.e. with
respect to the reference category sandwiches
(lMDsandwiches ¼ 0); le {schnitzel, fish, vegetarian
dish, chicken nuggets, sandwiches};
lEX j MDl second-order effect of experimental stimulus
by main dish chosen;
ujkl error term.
Viewed as a special kind of multiway frequency
analysis, our data is a 2225 table, with 2160
observations in total, distributed among the 40 cells.
frequencies with less than 5, the basic requirements for
running a logistic regression are fulfilled. The results are
presented in Table 2.
By looking at the parameter estimates, significant
influences for all independent variables are found. Since
the parameter estimates describe the linear effects of the
predictors on the log of the odds ratio of the outcome
category, interpretation is more intuitive in terms of the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
174 C. Ebster et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 169–176

Table 2

Logistic regression: probability of ordering a side disha

Independent variables Parameter estimates Odds ratio

Constant 1.24
Experimental groupb 0.52 1.68
Adultc 0.64 1.90
Schnitzeld 2.63 13.80
Fishd 1.95 7.04
Vegetarian dishd 0.49 1.64
Chicken nuggetsd 2.11 8.21
Schnitzel  experimental group 1.12 3.06
Fish  experimental group 0.98 2.68
Vegetarian dish  experimental group 0.77 2.17
Chicken nuggets  experimental group
0.33 0.72
Goodness-of-fit
LR-test against ‘constant-only model’ w^ 2 ¼ 856:79 df ¼ 10
LR-test against ‘full model’ 2 df ¼ 9
G^ ¼ 5:01
‘Perfect model’ hit rate ¼ 84.2% N ¼ 2160
(Cmax ¼ 73.6%e) (Cpro ¼ 61.1%f)
Pseudo-R2 (McFadden, 1974) r2 ¼ 0:34
 Significant at the 10% level.
Significant at the 5% level.
Significant at the 1% level.
a
Reference category: no side dish ordered.
b
Reference category: control group.
c
Reference category: child.
d
Reference category: sandwiches.
e
Benchmark maximum chance criterion.
f
Benchmark proportional chance criterion.

coefficients’ odds ratio (i.e. expðl^  Þ). For example, a
customer choosing fish as a main dish is seven times
more likely to order a side dish than a person having
sandwiches. It can be noted that ‘‘main dish chosen’’ is
the most influential regressor. Moreover, adults con-
sume side dishes almost twice as often as children. The
reasons for this are numerous. For example, children do
not eat as much as adults and, therefore, are satiated
with less food and do not need side dishes to satisfy their
appetite. In addition, children probably have more
restrictions on money at their disposal and, therefore,
cannot afford to buy a side dish (even if they wanted to).
When accounting for other effects, prompting is
nevertheless found to have a significant influence, i.e.
the odds of ordering a side dish are 1.68:1 in this case
(whereas a rough estimate of the odds based on the data
in Table 1 would be 2.27:1, i.e. (0.78/0.22)/(0.61/.039)).
This result is in line with the approximation of the odds
of ordering a side dish when belonging to the experi-
mental group and ordering the vegetarian dish. In
comment (iii) of Section 4.3 a preliminary estimate of 3.6
was derived which has to be compared with the estimate
of 2.17 in Table 2. Simultaneous consideration of several
effects reduces the magnitude of individual effects when
looked upon in isolation.
Goodness-of-fit is also satisfactory. Statistical testing
rejects the assumption that a constant-only model fits as
well as the proposed one, but does not reject the full (i.e.
saturated) model. Classification based upon the model
fails only in about 16% of the cases (due to limited data,
it was not possible to divide the data into an estimation
and a hold-out sample to provide a more stringent
calculation of the hit rate). A detailed analysis of the
standardized residuals shows that all of them are smaller
than 1.1 (in absolute value), and therefore there are no
outliers in the data. Finally, pseudo R2 (McFadden,
1974) is also acceptable, enabling us to conclude that
logistic regression provides results which are face valid
as well as statistically sound. In accordance with
preliminary results, the proposed model outperforms
alternative formulations (with other independent vari-
ables such as ‘‘gender’’, ‘‘location of restaurants’’ or
‘‘time’’).
4.5. Investigation of H3 and H4
With respect to Hypotheses 3 and 4, it is interesting to
observe the estimates of the interaction variable, e.g.
prompting a patron who orders a schnitzel is three times
more effective than if he were to ask for sandwiches (or
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Ebster et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 169–176
chicken nuggets). Bearing in mind that schnitzels are
usually served with a potato-based side dish in Austria,
the significance of this parameter supports Hypothesis 3.
The second-order effect is also significant for fish and
the vegetarian dishes, although the odds ratios are
slightly lower. In view of the rather similar percentages
of side dishes ordered within the control group for fish
and chicken nuggets (c.f. remark (ii) in Section 4.3
above), the increased effectiveness of prompting with
fish dishes must be due to some external influence not
considered until now. We attribute this to the fact that
fish dishes have only been added to the menu recently,
but concede that causality (in the strictest sense) has not,
as yet, been established. Similarly, when comparing the
vegetarian dish and sandwiches, the same pattern is
identified, however, to a lesser extent. Subsequently,
results are in line with Hypothesis 4.
5. Discussion
This study examined the effectiveness of suggestive
selling using verbal prompts. It has been shown that
verbal prompts can lead to significant increases (16–18
percentage points) in sales of side dishes in fast food
restaurants. This finding is consistent with the results of
studies conducted in social marketing. Moreover, the
hypothesis based on correspondent-inference theory,
whereby prompts are more effective in increasing sales
of side dishes when used in conjunction with behavior
not previously performed, i.e. ordering side dishes with
main dishes atypical for the restaurant, is supported by
the results. However, the wording of the prompts did
not appear to influence their effectiveness, and in
particular the forced-choice prompt was not found
to be more effective than regular verbal prompts. A
possible explanation for this might be that both side
dishes prompted were potato-based food items. While
the results suggest that both fries and potato salad are
highly popular with the restaurants’ patrons, it seems
unlikely that the particular phrase used to suggest a side
dish might have led customers who dislike potato-based
dishes to overcome their dislike.
5.1. Limitations and areas for future research
While this field experiment has demonstrated that
verbal prompts are effective in fast food restaurants,
caution should be exercised in generalizing these
findings to other settings. Furthermore, correspondent-
inference theory can only partially explain the effective-
ness of prompts. In the course of this study, it was not
possible to conclude how effective prompts should be
worded, a relevant issue for consumer researchers and
practitioners alike. Further studies to investigate
whether the effectiveness of suggestive selling can be
175
extended to related industries, and which factors, apart
from the typicality of products, are influential, are
warranted. An important factor in the effectiveness of
suggestive selling might be whether a functional or
hedonic product is being prompted. This distinction has
been shown to influence price sensitivity (Wakefield and
Inman, 2003) and could also extend to sales promotion
effectiveness. Furthermore, further research could ex-
amine the role of social influence on the effectiveness of
prompts. While only single orders (i.e. customers
ordering one meal) were included in the present study,
the effectiveness of prompts when multiple orders are
placed and when customers order as part of a group,
should be examined in future studies. Finally, it might
be worth investigating the long-term effects of verbal
prompting, and its impact on customer satisfaction and
store loyalty.
5.2. Managerial implications
From a managerial standpoint, it should be noted
that verbal prompts could be a promising and cost-
efficient sales promotion tool. Nevertheless, it should
not be forgotten that prompting could lead to resistance
from both employees and customers. Therefore, special
care should be taken to overcome this reactance. To
mitigate employees’ reactance to prompting, clear rules
as to when sales should be prompted should be given,
while at the same time allowing staff to use discretion
when not to prompt (e.g. in the case of regular
customers, fellow employees or children). In an empiri-
cal study, Johnson and Masotti (1990) found that
behavioral interventions such as feedback, goal setting
and positive reinforcement by management can increase
appropriate suggested selling by employees. To mini-
mize customers’ annoyance when prompted for addi-
tional purchases, prompting should only be encouraged
with items complementing the purchase and prompts
should be delivered in a courteous, non-demanding way.
In conclusion, prompts can only achieve their full
potential, if they are integrated in overall human
resource and sales training strategy. Nevertheless, they
can be a very valuable marketing tool. In fact, as a result
of the obvious effectiveness of verbal prompting and its
efficiency compared to alternative sales promotion
instruments, such as price promotions, the fast food
company involved in this experiment has been using
suggestive selling ever since.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank two anonymous reviewers
for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this
article.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
176 C. Ebster et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 169–176
References
Andrews, K.J., 1999. Extending upselling and cross-selling efforts.
Target Marketing 22, 36–40.
Bauer, R.A., 1960. Consumer behavior as risk taking. In: Hancock,
R.S. (Ed.), Dynamic Marketing for a Changing World: Proceed-
ings of the 43rd Conference of the American Marketing Associa-
tion, pp. 389–398.
D’Aversa-Williams, T., 2001. Merchandising+suggestive selling ¼
accessory sales. Sporting Goods Business 34, 44.
Engerman, J.A., Austin, J., Bailey, J.S., 1997. Prompting patron safety
belt use at a supermarket. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 30,
577–579.
Feeney, E.J., Staelin, J.R., O’Brien, R.M., Dickinson, A.M., 1982.
Increasing sales performance among airline reservation personnel.
In: O’Brien, R.M., Dickinson, A.M., Rosow, M. (Eds.), Industrial
Behavior Modification: A Management Handbook. Pergamon
Press, New York, pp. 141–158.
Ferrari, J.R., Barone, R.C., Jason, L.A., Rose, T., 1985. The use of
incentives to increase blood donations. Journal of Social Psychol-
ogy 125, 791–793.
Försterling, F., 2001. Attribution: An Introduction to Theories,
Research, and Applications. Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia, PA.
Foxall, G.R. (Ed.), 2002. Consumer Behaviour Analysis: Critical
Perspectives on Business and Management. Routledge, London.
Friman, P.C., Finney, J.W., Rapoff, M.A., Christophersen, E.R.,
1985. Improving pediatric appointment keeping with reminders
and reduced response requirement. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis 18, 315–321.
Johnson, C.M., Masotti, R.M., 1990. Suggestive selling by waitstaff in
a family style restaurant. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Mangement 11, 35–54.
Jones, E.E., McGillis, D., 1976. Correspondent inference and the
attribution cube: a comparative reappraisal. In: Harvey, J.H.,
Ickes, W.J., Kidd, R.F. (Eds.), New Directions in Attribution
Research, vol. 1. Erlbaum, New York, pp. 389–419.
Kazdin, A.E., 1994. Behavior Modification in Applied Settings, fifth
ed. Brooks/Cole Publishing, Pacific Grove, CA.
Langer, E.J., Moldoveanu, M., 2000. Mindfulness theory and the
future. Journal of Social Issues 56, 129–139.
Langer, E.J., Blank, A., Chanowitz, B., 1978. The mindlessness of
ostensibly thoughtful action: The role of ‘‘placebic’’ information in
interpersonal interaction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 36, 635–642.
Lauderbaugh, J.J., 2002. Embracing the upsell: Increase sales by
shifting your phone reps’ mindset from service to sales. Catalog
Age 19 (6), 49–50.
Leidner, R., 1993. Fast Food, Fast Talk: Service Work and the
Routinization of Everyday Life. University of California Press,
Berkeley, CA.
Lichtenstein, D.R., Burton, S., Karson, E.J., 1991. The effect of
semantic cues on consumer perception of reference price ads.
Journal of Consumer Research 18, 380–391.
Martinko, M.J., 1987. An O. B. Mod. analysis of consumer
behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management 8,
19–43.
Martinko, M.J., White, J.D., Hassell, B., 1989. An operant analysis of
prompting in a sales environment. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management 10, 93–107.
McFadden, D., 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice
behavior. In: Zarembka, P. (Ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics.
Academic Press, New York, pp. 105–142.
Nord, W.R., Peter, J.P., 1980. A behavior modification perspective on
marketing. Journal of Marketing 44, 36–47.
Roselius, T., 1971. Consumer ranking of risk reduction methods.
Journal of Marketing 35, 56–61.
Rosenberg, J., 1995. Dictionary of Retailing and Merchandising.
Wiley, New York.
Skinner, B.F., 1969. Contingencies of Reinforcement: a Theoretical
Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Sweeney, J.C., Soutar, G.N., Johnson, LW., 1999. The role of
perceived risk in the quality-value relationship: a study in a retail
environment. Journal of Retailing 75, 77–105.
Thorndike, E.L., 1911. Animal Intelligence. Macmillan, New York.
Touchette, P.E., Howard, J.S., 1984. The effects of verbal performance
descriptions on nonverbal operant responding. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior 54, 273–291.
Wakefield, K.L., Inman, J.J., 2003. Situational price sensitivity: the
role of consumption occasion, social context and income. Journal
of Retailing 79, 199–212.