Different Responses of Gen Y and Gen Z Consumers to Internet Promotional Information: Based on Perceived Scarcity Theory_Vol. 2 No. 5 (JBM 2025)_Journal of Business and Marketing (ISSN: 3005-5717)

Home > Journal of Business and Marketing (ISSN: 3005-5717) > Vol. 2 No. 5 (JBM 2025) >

Different Responses of Gen Y and Gen Z Consumers to Internet Promotional Information: Based on Perceived Scarcity Theory

Download PDF

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jbm.202509510

Author(s)

Lihua Gao, Wenjie Hu*

Affiliation(s)

School of Language and Communication, Beijing Technology and Business University, Beijing, China *Corresponding Author

Abstract

This study examines how promotion information influences perceived scarcity and purchase intention among Generation Y and Generation Z consumers. Using controlled experiments that varied promotion types and product involvement, we assessed differences in perceived scarcity, purchase intention, and sharing willingness. Results show that Generation Y reported higher overall perceived scarcity but was unaffected by promotion type or product involvement. Generation Z perceived the least scarcity under limited quantity promotions for low-involvement products, reflecting generational differences in scarcity attitudes. Perceived scarcity more strongly affected purchase intention in Generation Y, while Generation Z’s purchase intention was shaped more by sharing willingness. In conclusion, promotional scarcity cues operate differently across generations, and scarcity alone is not an effective driver of purchase intention.

Keywords

Promotion; Perceived Scarcity; Generation Y and Z

References

[1]Barton, B., N. Zlatevska, and H. Oppewal. 2022. Scarcity tactics in marketing: A meta-analysis of product scarcity effects on consumer purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing 98 no.4: 741-758. [2]Benckendorff, P., and G. Moscardo. 2013. Generational cohorts and ecotourism. In R. Ballantyne and J. Packer (Eds.), International Handbook on Ecotourism. 135-153.Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. [3]Issa, T., and P. Isaias. 2016. Internet factors influencing generations Y and Z in Australia and Portugal: A practical study. Information Processing & Management 52, no.4: 592-617. [4]Campo, K, E Gijbrechts, and P Nisol. 2001. Dynamics in Consumer Response to Product unavailability: Do stockout reactions signal response to permanent assortment reductions? Journal of Business Research 57, no.8: 834–843. [5]Akbari, Mahsa. 2015. Different Impacts of Advertising Appeals on Advertising Attitude for High and Low Involvement Products. Global Business Review 16, no.3: 478-493. [6]Shah, A. K., S. Mullainathan, and E. Shafir. 2012. Some consequences of having too little. Science 338, no.6107: 682–685. [7]Shi, X. H., F. Li, and P. Chumnumpan. 2020. The use of product scarcity in marketing. European Journal of Marketing 54 (2):380-418. [8]Aggarwal,P., S.Y. Jun, and J.H. Huh. 2011. Scarcity messages. Journal of Advertising 40, no.3: 19-30. [9]Mani, A., S.Mullainathan, E.Shafir, and J. Y. Zhao. 2013. Poverty impedes cognitive function. Science 341, no.6149: 976-980. [10]Laor, T., and Y. Galily. 2022. Who'S clicking on on-demand? media consumption patterns of generations Y & Z. Technology in society 70, no.3: 102016. [11]Swami, S., and P. J. Khairnar. 2003. Diffusion of products with limited supply and known expiration date. Marketing Letters 14, no.1: 33-46. [12]Barber, M., B. Sung, S. Lee, and I. Cheah. 2021. "Exploring the influence of novelty and authenticity in wine consumption: the moderating effect of regionality and price." International Journal of Wine Business Research 33, no.2: 288-311.