Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is: The Value of Low Purchase Intention Consumers to Product Pricing

作者: Melissa Maier Bishop , Nelson A. Barber

DOI: 10.1111/JPIM.12131

关键词: Market segmentationProduct pricingMarketingContingent valuationEconomicsNormativeValue (economics)Social desirability biasProduct (category theory)Willingness to payManagement of Technology and InnovationStrategy and Management

摘要: Hypothetical bias is a common research problem in measuring intentions. This study examines differences individuals' hypothetical and nonhypothetical willingness to pay (WTP) based on purchase intention level. The purpose of Study 1 see if affecting all groups individuals when segmented by contingent valuation method (CVM) was used assess intentions WTP for an environmentally friendly (EF) offering. Individuals then participated auction that required them bid the same offering, thus requiring actual monetary commitment. Through segmenting into three (high, moderate, low), biases were found be positively related stated High moderate intenders significantly overstated their WTP. However, low did not. Further, no significant existed between groups. price willing through CVM represented closely what they rest market practice. The 2 examine several reasons why higher may overstating WTP, with normative pressure social desirability taken consideration. indicated EF non-EF product, auction. again both products, whereas Results suggest contribute products carry dimension (EF products). Controlling these two factors eliminated For not have component (non-EF products), controlling gap amounts. A main implication from this universal phenomenon does operate equally intenders. Marketers want consider only using lower pricing estimates new especially those component. has received much criticism produced nearly exact intender group reliable

参考文章(74)
Glenn W Harrison, Theory and Misbehavior of First-Price Auctions The American Economic Review. ,vol. 8710, pp. 749- 762 ,(1987)
John A. List, Craig A. Gallet, What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values Environmental and Resource Economics. ,vol. 20, pp. 241- 254 ,(2001) , 10.1023/A:1012791822804
Christina Sichtmann, Robert Wilken, Adamantios Diamantopoulos, Estimating Willingness‐to‐pay with Choice‐based Conjoint Analysis – Can Consumer Characteristics Explain Variations in Accuracy? British Journal of Management. ,vol. 22, pp. 628- 645 ,(2011) , 10.1111/J.1467-8551.2010.00696.X
Francisco Soler, José M. Gil, Mercedes Sánchez, Consumers’ acceptability of organic food in Spain: Results from an experimental auction market British Food Journal. ,vol. 104, pp. 670- 687 ,(2002) , 10.1108/00070700210425921
Helen R. Neill, Ronald G. Cummings, Philip T. Ganderton, Glenn W. Harrison, Thomas McGuckin, Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments Land Economics. ,vol. 70, pp. 145- 154 ,(1994) , 10.2307/3146318
Ling Peng, Adam Finn, Whose crystal ball to choose? Individual differences in the generalizability of concept testing Journal of Product Innovation Management. ,vol. 27, pp. 690- 704 ,(2010) , 10.1111/J.1540-5885.2010.00745.X
James C. Anderson, Dipak C Jain, Pradeep K Chintagunta, Customer Value Assessment in Business Markets: A State-of-Practice Study Journal of Business-to-business Marketing. ,vol. 1, pp. 3- 29 ,(1992) , 10.1300/J033V01N01_02
C. Lange, C. Martin, C. Chabanet, P. Combris, S. Issanchou, Impact of the information provided to consumers on their willingness to pay for Champagne: comparison with hedonic scores Food Quality and Preference. ,vol. 13, pp. 597- 608 ,(2002) , 10.1016/S0950-3293(02)00059-9