Supriadi Thalib, Explaining Student’s Revisit Intention via Scarcity… 1

P-ISSN: 1978-2853

E-ISSN: 2302-8890


MATRIK: JURNAL MANAJEMEN, STRATEGI BISNIS DAN KEWIRAUSAHAAN

Homepage: https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/jmbk/index

Vol. 17 No. 1, Februari (2023), 1-14

Explaining Students Revisit Intention via Scarcity Cues and Perceived Value: the Role of Sensory Brand Experience as Boundary Condition

Supriadi Thalib1), Harimurti Wulandjani2), Nana Nawasiah3), Hendryadi4), Rimi Gusliana Mais5)

1,2,3 Universitas Pancasila, Jakarta

4,5 Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Ekonomi Indonesia Jakarta, Jakarta

Email: [email protected]


SINTA 2


DOI : https://doi.org/10.24843/MATRIK:JMBK.2023.v17.i01.p01

ABSTRACT

In response to an empirical study on scarcity cues in COVID-19, the present study offers a model of the relationship between scarcity cues and revisit intention by integrating perceived value and sensory brand experiences (SBE). The moderation mediation model (MOD MED) was tested using 426 respondents who were university students in Jakarta. The results of the analysis show that scarcity cues have a negative impact on perceived value and revisit intention. The process model has been confirmed through the role of perceived value in the scarcity cues relationship. SBE in this study has an essential role as a bearing for the negative effect of scarcity cues on perceived value and revisit intention. Hence, this study offers a theoretical contribution to the proposed model and a practical one regarding the effectiveness of "scarcity cues" marketing strategies.

Keyword: Scarcity Cues, Sensory Brand Experiences, Perceived Value, Revisit Intention

INTRODUCTION

The hospitality industry has experienced the most setbacks due to COVID-19, which has occurred since 2020. The social distancing policy that applies to the entire industry has made restaurants that previously only provided dining-in services move to online ordering services. The shift in business mode has also caused restaurant business owners to make transformations in promotions, where using various platforms through social media (e.g., TikTok, Instagram) is increasingly popular. One of the promotional strategies is scarcity cues (Huang et al., 2020; Li et al., 2021), which marketers use as signals of popularity, high demand, and uniqueness of the products they offer (Wu & Lee, 2016). However, the scarcity cues strategy in several recent reports is only effective for online services and is irrelevant, especially for direct services (Li et al., 2021). In the present study, we focus on evaluating the effectiveness of promotional strategies using the scarcity cues approach on consumer attitudes and behavior (perceived value and revisit intention).

Theoretically, scarcity cues in business marketing strategy can be viewed as stimuli that may cause the consumer to have the desired reaction, like a high purchase intention (i.e., Barton

et al., 2022; Nazlan et al., 2018; Teubner & Graul, 2020). Scarcity signals indicate that goods or services are unavailable, which marketers commonly use to inform consumers about their products' uniqueness and high demand (Li et al., 2021). The assumptions underlying how scarcity cues influence consumer preferences are based on the stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R) model. This model explains how environmental stimuli affect an individual's affective (emotion) and cognitive (perception) reactions, which in turn affect behavior (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). Moreover, scarcity cues are also often associated with the bandwagon effect, which explains the phenomenon where consumers tend to imitate the behavior and attitudes of others when making purchases of goods and services. It is typically brought on by demand-induced scarcity (Zhang et al., 2022).

Scarcity cues are generally grouped into two, based on demand and supply. Demandbased scarcity cues indicate high consumer interest, which can be seen in the order queue length. Meanwhile, supply-based scarcity cues are a marketer's policy regarding limited stock availability or limited service time service (Huang et al., 2020; Li et al., 2021). Previous research has documented the positive effects of scarcity cues on consumer purchasing decisions (Barton et al., 2022; Gabler & Reynolds, 2013; He & Oppewal, 2018; Nazlan et al., 2018; Teubner & Graul, 2020; Wu & Lee, 2016). However, recent studies have drawn different conclusions about the effects of scarcity cues during a pandemic. For example, Li et al. (2021) identified the effects of negative scarcity clues on consumer buying behavior in the hospitality sector. They argue that the COVID-19 pandemic has changed how consumers view scarcity cues, initially as a signal of popularity but also interpreted as a safety signal where consumers prefer to avoid crowded places to prevent virus transmission. In this sense, this shift in interpretation can cause consumers to make different purchasing decisions, especially in the restaurant business. Following Li et al. (2021), our study replicates and makes several extensions to consumer behavior based on scarcity cues due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the present study, we focused on demand-based scarcity cues to evaluate the effectiveness of this strategy in the restaurant business. This study contributes to the consumer behavior and promotion strategy literature. First, our study adds to the paucity of recent literature on the effects of scarcity cues in the context of a pandemic, where their effects may contradict theoretical assumptions (Li et al., 2021). However, in contrast to Li et al. (2021), our study integrates perceived value and sensory brand experiences as mediators and boundary conditions in the relationship between scarcity cues and revisit intention.

Second, our study offers an adequate explanation regarding the relationship between scarcity cues to revisit intention. In contrast to Li et al. (2021), who use the concept of safety inference as an intersection, we propose perceived value as a mediator between scarcity cues and revisit intention. Hence, this study provides empirical evidence regarding the mechanism of revisit intention based on scarcity cues via a perceived value that has not previously been explored.

Third, we specifically examine how sensory brand experience (SBE) plays a vital role in reducing the effects of negative scarcity cues on consumer behavior, especially in the restaurant business. SBE, in various studies, has been trusted as an antecedent of brand authenticity, loyalty, and brand love (Hwang & Lee, 2019; Safeer et al., 2021; van der Westhuizen, 2018). On the other hand, brand experience, in general, can also create perceptions of customer value, engagement, and revisit intention (Hwang & Lee, 2019; Safeer et al., 2021; van der Westhuizen, 2018). Unlike previous studies which placed SBE as an antecedent of consumer preferences, the present study examines the role of SBE as a boundary condition in

the relationship between scarcity cues and revisit intention. In this sense, scarcity cues based on experience can reduce consumer purchase intention in the future (Li et al., 2021), and SBE can stimulate revisit intention. Hence, our study offers new insights into identifying the role of SBE in forming perceived value and revisiting intention based on scarcity cues.

Figure 1. Research model

Source: hypothetical model developed by researchers

In sum, the current study aims to fill the gaps in the empirical study of scarcity cues in the literature on pandemic situations. This study proposes a model that explains the relationship between scarcity cues and revisits intention by integrating perceived value and SBE (see Figure 1). Specifically, the research objectives are: (1) Examine the effect of scarcity clues on perceived value and revisit intention; (2) Examine the relationship between perceived value and revisit intention and its role as a mediating agent for the relationship between scarcity cues to revisit intention; and (3) Examine the role of SBE as a boundary condition of the effect of scarcity cues on perceived value and revisit intention. The mediation model 8 moderation analysis procedure is applied using a macro process (Hayes, 2017).

The framework underlying scarcity and its effect on consumers is based on the commodity theory developed by Brock from 1968 to 1992. The initial idea of this theory is that anything that is transferrable from one person to another can be owned and has worth to its owner, increasing its value or desirability. The literature on commodity theory offers numerous further examples of how consumers react to resource scarcity in circumstances of extraordinary mutability. Brock (1968) suggested that people might seek rare goods more than equivalent available goods because owning scarce goods evokes sentiments of individuality or distinctiveness. This scenario would support the boundary conditions of the commodity theory since scarce products are only likely to result in positive expected sensations of distinctiveness if they are sought after and have the potential to be possessed. In the same vein, the literature on commodity theory offers numerous further instances of how consumers react to resource scarcity in circumstances of extraordinary mutability (Cannon et al., 2019; Shi et al., 2020). Moreover, this theory argues that the value of a commodity will change due to difficulties in

obtaining it (Kim et al., 2020). In other words, the message of scarcity makes it possible that some people may have the product and others may not; hence, it can increase greater preference for consumers to have the product.

Drawing on commodity theory, we formulate the relationship between scarcity cues and revisit intention and integrate perceived value and sensory brand experiences into the model. First, the relationship between scarcity sources has been confirmed as a determinant of customer purchase decisions (Barton et al., 2022; Gabler & Reynolds, 2013; Nazlan et al., 2018; Teubner & Graul, 2020; Wu & Lee, 2016). Although in the context of revisit intention scarcity cues have never been explored, we argue that the relationship between the two can be explicitly explained through the commodity theory, which explains that food is a commodity everyone needs. In addition, studies in similar sectors (e.g., Hwang et al., 2020) found that scarcity cues play an important role in restaurant menu selection. Nevertheless, Barton et al. (2022) note that scarcity sources can have different meanings for consumers. For example, scarcity from high demand indicates popularity and higher value compared to similar products. On the other hand, a scarcity that comes from the supply also trigger consumers' desire to buy quickly (Barton et al., 2022; Gabler & Reynolds, 2013; Nazlan et al., 2018; Teubner & Graul, 2020). However, scarcity cues originating from disasters or accidents that cause limited product offerings will have different respondents (Barton et al., 2022). Using the argumentation of Li et al. (2021), who examine consumer decisions in pandemic situations, the effect of scarcity on revisit intention is likely to differ from typical situations. In other words, the effect of scarcity cues on restaurants (for example, by limiting operating hours, number of products, and number of visitors) makes consumers prefer to buy through online applications compared to visiting restaurants directly. Thus, the hypothesis proposed is:

H1: Scarcity cues have a negative effect on revisit intention

H2: Scarcity cues have a negative effect on perceived value

The power of a product to influence attitudes and behavior is referred to as its value (Brock TC, 1968). The perceived value of this commodity comes from its utility, so consumers are interested in acquiring the goods. In the same vein, in previous studies (Ahn & Kwon, 2020; Damanik & Yusuf, 2022; Juliana et al., 2022), perceived value is the critical component for revisit intention it becomes a significant concern for business managers in the hospitality sector. Moreover, since scarcity affects perceived value, and perceived value can encourage the consumer to revisit intention, we also propose its role as a mediator. In this study, perceived value can mediate the relationship between scarcity cues and revisit intention.

H3: Perceived value have a positive effect on revisit intention

H4: Perceived value will mediate the link scarcity cues to customer' revisit intention

Sensory brand experience is one of the four dimensions of brand experience (i.e., sensory, affective, intellectual, and behavioral), which describes the consumer's sensory experience of a particular brand (Brakus et al., 2009). Because it involves sensory components, the consumer experience refers to the senses of smell, taste, sight, and hearing to give a memorable impression to the brand (Iglesias et al., 2019; van der Westhuizen, 2018). SBE has previously been confirmed to affect perceptions of customer value, consumption, engagement, and revisit intention (S.-L. Han & Kim, 2020; Husain et al., 2022; J. Hwang & Lee, 2019; Safeer et al., 2021; Shahid et al., 2022; van der Westhuizen, 2018). Furthermore, several recent studies

have also tested the role of SBE as a moderator (Klabi, 2020) on the relationship between selfimage congruity and consumer-perceived quality. Hence, the proposed model places SBE as a moderator on the relationship between scarcity cues, perceived value, and revisit intention.

H5: SBE moderates the link scarcity cues to customers' perceived value

H6: SBE moderates the link scarcity cues to customer' revisit intention

METHODS

Sample and procedure

The target population for this study is students in Jakarta, while the reachable population is undergraduate and master's degree students from two private universities in Jakarta. A purposive sampling approach is used as a sampling technique, which involves lecturer collaborators who teach marketing management courses. In the first data collection stage, collaborators were contacted to confirm their willingness to participate in the research. Furthermore, online questionnaires were distributed to class groups using the Whatsapp application through collaborators. From the initial data collection, it was obtained that the number of respondents was 512 students covering nine classes of undergraduate students and four classes of master's degrees. The entire data collection process was carried out from April to August 2022, when the Indonesian government had yet to lift the social distancing rule for all sectors.

A total of 478 responded, but only 426 responses were processed after checking the completeness of the information. A total of 308 respondents (72.3%) were male students, and only 118 respondents (27.7%) were female students. Most respondents are undergraduate students (70.7%), and 29.3% are Master's students. Most respondents were not married/single (62.9%), 34.5% stated they were married, and 2.6% were unwilling to answer. The average age of respondents is 24 years, with a minimum age of 20 and a maximum of 39 years.

Measurement

All scales used in this study to measure variables use an adapting scale from existing studies. For example, sensory brand experience (SBE) is measured by three items (Brakus et al., 2009; Iglesias et al., 2019). Perceived value is adapted from Sweeney and Soutar (2001), and three items are used to measure scarcity cues (Li et al., 2021). Finally, revisit intention is adapted from three statements (H. Han et al., 2009). All items were responded to using a 5-point Likert-Type, starting from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

The validity and reliability of the scale using factor analysis and several other parameters to test reliability. As shown in Table 1, the loading indicator for all items has fulfilled the eligibility item validity (> 0.05) as Hair et al. (2019) recommend. The convergent validity of each construct was then evaluated based on the average variance extracted (AVE) value, resulting in all constructs meeting the minimum standard of 0.50 of AVE. Internal consistency was evaluated with Cronbach alpha (CA) and composite reliability (CR), indicating that all constructs met the cut-off value of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2019).

Table 1. Measurement evaluation

Indicator loading

VIF

CA

CR

AVE

SBE1

0.86

1.75

0.77

0.87

0.69

SBE2

0.79

1.41

SBE3

0.83

1.74

SC1

0.88

2.39

0.86

0.92

0.78

SC2

0.90

2.16

SC3

0.89

2.32

VAL1

0.89

2.57

0.87

0.92

0.79

VAL2

0.91

2.53

VAL3

0.87

1.99

VIS1

0.90

2.19

0.83

0.90

0.74

VIS2

0.81

1.68

VIS3

0.87

1.99

AVE for single construct

0.22

Note: SBE = sensory brand experience, VAL = perceived value, VIS= revisit intention, SC= scarcity cues.

Source: results of analysis using SPSS version 23

Analysis technique

Before further data analysis is carried out, the common method bias (CMB) in the data is first evaluated. CMB is a threat that needs to be evaluated to ensure data is free from bias because it is obtained from a single source and cross-sectional design (Podsakoff et al., 2012). We use Podsakoff's guidelines to assess whether there is a possibility of bias in the data using control statistics with the Harman single-factor model approach. In addition, we used the guidelines of Kock et al. (2021) using the AVE value in the combined construct. In this study, the AVE value for a single factor was 0.22 (<0.40), according to Kock's recommendations (2021). It indicates that CMB in the data is not a severe threat in this study (Kock et al., 2021). Furthermore, the hypothesis in this study was tested with hierarchical regression with moderation, using the Macro process (Hayes, 2017). Model 8 Modmed is applied to examine the relationship between variables and the mediating and moderating role of perceived value and SBE.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The descriptive statistics and correlations shown below will provide an overview of the data, including the direction of the relationship between variables as an initial identification of the study. Table 2 describes the data and the correlation between research variables. The mean scores for all constructs were in the range of 3.17 for scarcity cues, 3.52 for perceived value, 2.83 (SBE), and 3.67 (revisit intention), indicating that all were at the moderate level (median 2.50). All standard deviation values are less than the mean of the variables, indicating that the variability of the data is relatively low. In other words, respondents' answers to the four variables used in this study are relatively homogeneous.

Furthermore, the intercorrelation between variables provides an initial picture of the direction of the relationship. First, scarcity cues were identified as negatively correlated with perceived value (r=-0.21) and revisit intention (r=-0.17). Second, perceived value positively correlates with revisit intention (r=0.19) and SBE (r=0.17). From the correlation results, it can be predicted that the direction of the relationship between scarcity cues to perceived value and revisit intention is negative and significant at the 1 percent level (p-value <0.01). Meanwhile, the relationship between perceived value and revisit intention is positive (p-value <0.01) and is in line with the direction of the relationship stated in the hypothesis.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics

Mean

Std. Deviation

SC

VAL

VIS

SBE

SC

3.17

1.08

1

VAL

3.52

0.80

-.21**

1

VIS

3.67

0.93

-.17**

.19**

1

SBE

2.83

0.89

0.0

.17**

-0.02

1

Note: SBE = sensory brand experience, VAL = perceived value, VIS= revisit intention, SC= scarcity cues, ** p value < 0.01

Source: results of analysis using SPSS version 23

After the descriptive and correlation analysis, hypothesis testing was carried out using the mediation moderation procedure (MODMED). This procedure tests models that place mediator and moderator variables together. The hypothesis was tested using two approaches: based on statistical significance (p-values) and bootstrapping (by comparing the low-level and upper-level of confidence intervals/ LLCI/ULCI) as recommended by Hayes (2017). The results of testing the hypothesis with the macro process model 8 (Hayes, 2017) are shown in Table 3. First, hypothesis 1 regarding the relationship between scarcity clues and perceived value is proven negative and significant (β = -0.15, p-value <0.01). Scarcity clues are proven to impact revisit intention β = -0.12 negatively, and p-value <0.05 is the answer to hypothesis 2. Furthermore, perceived value has been confirmed to be positively associated with revisit intention β = 0.17, p-value <0.01); thus, hypothesis 3 is supported. The results of this study confirm the role of intermediate perceived value in the relationship between scarcity clues and revisit intention, supporting hypothesis 4. The indirect effect is -0.03, and by bootstrap analysis, the value of LLCI = -0.05 and ULCI = -0.01 is obtained. These two non-zero values (LLCI/ULCI) provide the support that the indirect relationship is confirmed (Hayes, 2017).

Table 3. Results of analysis

Coeff

SE

t

p

LLCI

ULCI

Model 1: Perceived value

as dependent

SC

-0.15

0.04

-4.36

0.00

-0.22

-0.08

SBE

0.16

0.04

3.75

0.00

0.08

0.24

Int 1 (SBE x SC)

0.11

0.04

2.69

0.01

0.03

0.18

Model 2: Revisit intention as dependent

SC

-0.12

0.04

-2.79

0.01

-0.20

-0.03

VAL

0.17

0.06

3.01

0.00

-0.06

0.28

Int 2 (SBE x SC)

0.17

0.05

3.72

0.00

0.08

0.26

Mediation analysis

-0.03

0.01

-

-

-0.05

-0.01

Note: SBE = sensory brand experience, VAL = perceived value, VIS= revisit intention, SC= scarcity cues, ** p value < 0.01

Source: results of analysis using Marcro Process 4.0

Next, the moderation hypothesis is assessed based on the interaction coefficient. As shown in Table 3, interaction 1 (SBE x SC) was positive and significant (β = 0.11, p-value <0.05). Similarly, interaction 2 (SBE x SC) was also confirmed to be positive and significant (β = 0.17, p-value <0.01). These results fully support hypotheses 5 and 6. Moreover, as shown in Table 4 and Figure 2, the effect of negative scarcity cues on perceived value decreases drastically with an increase in SBE. In other words, the effect of negative scarcity cues is only significant when SBE is at a low level (β = -0.24, p-value < 0.01) and becomes insignificant when SBE is at a high level (β = -0.06, p-value > 0.05).

Table 4. Conditional effect of scarcity cues on perceived value and revisit intention based on SBE scores

Effect

SE

t

p

LLCI

ULCI

Model 1: Moderating effect of SBE on

Low SBE                    -0.24

SC and VAL

0.06

-4.62

0.00

-0.38

-0.15

Mean SBE                   -0.11

0.04

2.69

0.01

0.03

0.18

High SBE                      -0.06

0.05

-1.15

0.25

-0.16

0.04

Model 2: Moderating effect of SBE on

Low SBE                    -0.29

SC and VIS

0.09

-3.22

0.00

-0.39

-0.18

Mean SBE                   -0.17

0.05

3.72

0.00

0.08

0.26

High SBE                    0.04

0.06

0.63

0.53

-0.08

0.15

Source: results of analysis using Marcro Process 4.0

Similarly, SBE also has a moderating role in the relationship between scarcity cues and revisit intention. As shown in Table 4 and Figure 2, the effect of negative scarcity cues dramatically decreased as SBE increased. The analysis results demonstrate that the effect of scarcity cues is β = -0.29 when SBE is at a low level, and when SBE is at that level, the effect is positive but not significant (β = 0.04, p-value > 0.05). This condition indicates that the

strength of SBE can neutralize the adverse effects of scarcity cues based on consumer experience on their intention to revisit in the future.

Source: results of analysis using Marcro Process 4.0

Scarcity cues in the marketing strategy have two components, based on demand and purely as a strategy to attract consumer interest. Demand-based scarcity cues lead to signals regarding the popularity of products/services, which causes high consumer demand. Meanwhile, scarcity cues based on strategy are marketers' efforts to provide scarcity information through various advertisements (for example, discounts only apply today, and tomorrow prices go up). In this study, we focused on demand-based scarcity cues at popular restaurants on social media. The results of this study indicate that scarcity cues during the transition period from the COVID-19 pandemic to the endemic have a negative effect on perceived value and revisit intention. Perceived value positively affects revisit intention and acts as a mediator between scarcity cues and revisit intention. Furthermore, sensory brand experience positively moderates the effect of scarcity cues on perceived value and revisit intention—an explanation of the theoretical and practical contributions we describe in the next section. The findings of this study make several significant contributions to the strategic marketing literature, particularly on scarcity cues.

First, this study adds to the recent literature on the adverse effects of scarcity cues on revisit intention decisions. Previous research has focused more on the positive effects of scarcity cues as a marketing strategy that can influence consumer purchasing decisions (Barton et al., 2022; Gabler & Reynolds, 2013; Nazlan et al., 2018; Teubner & Graul, 2020; Wu & Lee, 2016). In contrast to previous studies, which focused more on purchasing decisions, our research adds to the paucity of recent literature on the effects of scarcity cues on revisit intention, which has yet to be explored. Moreover, in the context of a pandemic, the results of this study add insight into the effects of scarcity cues on consumer behavior in a pandemic situation. Unlike the normal situation, the results of this study provide empirical support regarding the unfavorable effects of the scarcity strategy, where their effects may contradict theoretical assumptions (Li et al., 2021). For example, Li et al. (2021) found a negative effect of scarcity cues on purchase decisions for consumers in the hotel sector. However, in contrast to Li et al. (2021), our study integrates perceived value and sensory brand experiences as mediators and boundary

conditions. The results of this study indicate that scarcity cues are ineffective in all situations and for consumers. For example, consumers who have experienced scarcity cues may not view these cues as popularity but rather fail of services where slow processing of orders, waiting times, and limited stock availability will cause consumers to reduce their interest in revising. Moreover, in the COVID-19 situation, restaurant managers also limit the number of visitors to discourage consumers from visiting the location.

The second contribution, our study offers an adequate explanation regarding the relationship between scarcity clues to revisit intention. In contrast to Li et al. (2021), who use the concept of safety inference as an intersection, present study propose perceived value as a mediator between scarcity cues and revisit intention. Our findings show that instead of inferring scarcity cues as popularity and quality cues, scarcity cues based on the respondent's experience decrease their perceived value, which impacts decreased customers' revisit intention. In this sense, the impact of negative scarcity cues on perceived value has consequences for future consumer decisions. Hence, this study provides empirical evidence regarding the mechanism of revisit intention based on scarcity cues via a perceived value that has not previously been explored.

Third, we are one of the first to demonstrate how sensory brand experience plays a vital role in reducing the effects of negative scarcity cues on consumer behavior, especially in the restaurant business. Previous studies have confirmed various roles of SBE on consumer behavior (Han & Kim, 2020; Husain et al., 2022; Hwang & Lee, 2019; Iglesias et al., 2019; Safeer et al., 2021; Shahid et al., 2022; van der Westhuizen, 2018), however, in this study, we uncover the unique role of SBE as a moderator of the relationship between scarcity cues and revisit intention. The study's results provide additional knowledge about the previous role of SBE (Klabi, 2020) in between self-image congruity and consumer-perceived quality. SBE is a unique concept different from general brand experience (Zha et al., 2022) and is more towards a combination of ecological psychology, brand experience, and sensory marketing. Because theoretically, SBE has only recently been introduced, empirically, SBE is still relatively limited, and therefore this study fills this gap. Studies provide a specific role for SBE in the relationship between scarcity cues, perceived value, and visit intention. As shown in Figure 2, SBE acts as a cushion to reduce the effect of negative scarcity cues on perceived value and revisit intention. In other words, even though scarcity cues are proven to affect perceived value negatively, SBE can obscure the relationship. Practically this means that even though consumers respond negatively to scarcity cues, their previous sensory experience at the restaurant may attenuate this effect.

Besides having a theoretical contribution, our study offers a practical contribution, especially for marketing managers. The results of this study inform the restaurant business about the negative potential of scarcity cues during a pandemic which is different from the previous situation and was recognized as having a positive effect on consumer behavior. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been many changes in consumer behavior, including how they respond to scarcity cues. Consumers may prefer restaurants that provide faster service and are not too crowded, so this scarcity cues strategy is ineffective in the current pandemic. Considering these findings, several recommendations for restaurant business owners include: first, restaurant business owners carefully implement marketing strategies by sending signals to consumers regarding popularity based on scarcity clues. Scarcity and popularity are two different things, and they can contradict each other (Wu & Lee, 2016). In addition, popularity does not only result from scarcity messages; consumers may

understand popularity as easy access and not exclusive (Wu & Lee, 2016). Thus, implementing a scarcity strategy may only be effective during intense competition and many substitute products as it is today.

Second, marketing managers need to understand that giving the impression of scarcity may cause consumers to move locations, especially consumers who have a short time to wait in line. For this reason, marketing managers need to understand promotional strategies using scarcity cues in various situations and a variety of consumers. Such knowledge allows management to understand clearly when and where to use the scarcity strategy over other strategies. Finally, marketing managers need to conduct continuous evaluations to determine their brand's strength in the eyes of consumers. The scarcity strategy might be effective for consumers who positively perceive the brand. However, it will only be effective for companies with strong brands in the eyes of consumers.

CONCLUSION

This study aims to evaluate restaurant business owners' "scarcity cues" marketing strategy to attract consumer interest. In contrast to previous studies that investigated the positive effects of scarcity cues on consumer decisions, our study offers a new perspective that scarcity cues are ineffective, especially in pandemic situations. The current study proves that scarcity cues have a negative effect on perceived value and revisit intention. Moreover, perceived value is a mediator for scarcity cues and revisit intention. Most importantly, the results have confirmed that sensory brand experience is a boundary condition that can reduce the adverse effects of scarcity cues on perceived value and revisit intention.

Despite revealing theoretical and practical contributions, this study has weaknesses that can be of particular note to future researchers. First, this study was only conducted in Indonesia, especially in the restaurant industry. Thus, generalizations about other industries need to be made with caution. Second, the model we propose is an initial result where empirical evidence in other regions and sectors needs to be considered to broaden the scope of the background in this study. Third, the data were collected using a cross-sectional approach, so we cannot confirm the causal effect of scarcity cues on perceived value and revisit intention. We suggest future studies use a longitudinal design to examine the long-term effects of scarcity cues on consumer buying behavior.

REFERENCES

Ahn, J., & Kwon, J. (2020). Green hotel brands in Malaysia: perceived value, cost, anticipated emotion, and revisit intention. Current Issues in Tourism, 23(12), 1559–1574. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1646715

Barton, B., Zlatevska, N., & Oppewal, H. (2022). Scarcity tactics in marketing: A meta-analysis of product scarcity effects on consumer purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2022.06.003

Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand Experience: What is It? How is it Measured? Does it Affect Loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 52–68.

https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.3.052

Brock TC. (1968). Implications of Commodity Theory for Value Change. In T. C. Greenwald, Brock, & Ostrom T N (Eds.), Psychological Foundations of Attitudes (pp. 243–276). Academic Press.

Cannon, C., Goldsmith, K., & Roux, C. (2019). A Self‐Regulatory Model of Resource Scarcity. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29(1), 104–127. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1035

Damanik, J., & Yusuf, M. (2022). Effects of perceived value, expectation, visitor management, and visitor satisfaction on revisit intention to Borobudur Temple, Indonesia. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 17(2), 174–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2021.1950164

Gabler, C. B., & Reynolds, K. E. (2013). Buy Now or Buy Later: The Effects of Scarcity and Discounts on Purchase Decisions. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 21(4), 441– 456. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679210407

Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM.   European Business Review,   31(1),   2–24.

https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203

Han, H., Back, K.-J., & Barrett, B. (2009). Influencing factors on restaurant customers’ revisit intention: The roles of emotions and switching barriers. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(4), 563–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.03.005

Han, S.-L., & Kim, K. (2020). Role of consumption values in the luxury brand experience: Moderating effects of category and the generation gap. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 57, 102249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102249

Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approac. Guilford publications.

He, Y., & Oppewal, H. (2018). See How Much We’ve Sold Already! Effects of Displaying Sales and Stock Level Information on Consumers’ Online Product Choices. Journal of Retailing, 94(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2017.10.002

Huang, H., Liu, S. Q., Kandampully, J., & Bujisic, M. (2020). Consumer Responses to Scarcity Appeals in Online Booking. Annals of Tourism Research, 80, 102800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.102800

Husain, R., Paul, J., & Koles, B. (2022). The role of brand experience, brand resonance and brand trust in luxury consumption. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 66, 102895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102895

Hwang, J., & Lee, J. (Jay). (2019). Antecedents and consequences of brand prestige of package tour in the senior tourism industry. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 24(7), 679– 695. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2019.1623274

Hwang, Y., Su, N., & Mattila, A. (2020). The interplay between social crowding and power on solo diners’ attitudes toward menus with popularity and scarcity cues. International

Journal of Contemporary Hospitality   Management,   32(3),   1227–1246.

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2019-0422

Iglesias, O., Markovic, S., & Rialp, J. (2019). How does sensory brand experience influence brand equity? Considering the roles of customer satisfaction, customer affective commitment, and employee empathy. Journal of Business Research, 96, 343–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.043

Juliana, J., Putri, F. F., Wulandari, N. S., Saripudin, U., & Marlina, R. (2022). Muslim tourist perceived value on revisit intention to Bandung city with customer satisfaction as intervening variables. Journal of Islamic   Marketing,   13(1),   161–176.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-08-2020-0245

Kim, E. J., Choi, C., & Tanford, S. (2020). Influence of scarcity on travel decisions and cognitive dissonance. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 25(7), 721–735. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2020.1720258

Klabi, F. (2020). Self-Image Congruity Affecting Perceived Quality and the Moderation of Brand Experience: The Case of Local and International Brands in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Journal of Global      Marketing,      33(2),      69–83.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08911762.2019.1614242

Kock, F., Berbekova, A., & Assaf, A. G. (2021). Understanding and managing the threat of common method bias: Detection, prevention and control. Tourism Management, 86, 104330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104330

Li, Y., Yao, J., & Chen, J. (2021). The negative effect of scarcity cues on consumer purchase decisions in the hospitality industry during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Hospitality       Management,       94,       102815.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102815

Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. . (1974). An Approach to Environmental Psychology. MIT Press.

Nazlan, N. H., Tanford, S., Raab, C., & Choi, C. (CB). (2018). The influence of scarcity cues and price bundling on menu item selection. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 21(4), 420–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2018.1440129

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

Safeer, A. A., He, Y., & Abrar, M. (2021). The influence of brand experience on brand authenticity and brand love: an empirical study from Asian consumers’ perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,   33(5),   1123–1138.

https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-02-2020-0123

Shahid, S., Paul, J., Gilal, F. G., & Ansari, S. (2022). The role of sensory marketing and brand experience in building emotional attachment and brand loyalty in luxury retail stores. Psychology & Marketing, 39(7), 1398–1412. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21661

Shi, X., Li, F., & Chumnumpan, P. (2020). The use of product scarcity in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 380–418. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-04-2018-0285

Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00041-0

Teubner, T., & Graul, A. (2020). Only one room left! How scarcity cues affect booking intentions on hospitality platforms. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 39, 100910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2019.100910

van der Westhuizen, L.-M. (2018). Brand loyalty: exploring self-brand connection and brand experience. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 27(2), 172–184. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-07-2016-1281

Wu, L., & Lee, C. (2016). Limited Edition for Me and Best Seller for You: The Impact of Scarcity versus Popularity Cues on Self versus Other-Purchase Behavior. Journal of Retailing, 92(4), 486–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2016.08.001

Zha, D., Foroudi, P., Jin, Z., & Melewar, T. C. (2022). Making sense of sensory brand experience: Constructing an integrative framework for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 24(1), 130–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12270

Zhang, J., Jiang, N., Turner, J. J., & Pahlevan-Sharif, S. (2022). The Impact of Scarcity on Consumers’ Impulse Buying Based on the S-O-R Theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.792419