Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Willingness to Pay

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Market Research

  • 1381 Accesses

Abstract

Measuring accurate willingness to pay (WTP) is essential for designing pricing policies, particularly for pricing new products. Neglecting consumers’ WTP may lead to unexploited surplus when prices are set too low or to low demand when prices are set too high. Additionally, information on consumers’ WTP serves as valuable input to estimate sales and for use in optimization models, thus, to maximize profit. To date, various approaches to measure WTP exist that differ regarding their elicitation approach (direct vs. experimental) and whether they rely on stated or revealed preferences (hypothetical vs. actual WTP). This chapter provides an overview of the most common methods for measuring WTP and further discusses determinants of WTP.

We further provide a practical illustration of WTP measurement. Therefore, we collected data on consumers’ WTP for a hypothetical new product offer using two stated preference approaches (open-ended questions and dichotomous choice method following a sequential monadic approach) as well as one revealed preference approach (BDM mechanism). We compare the results of these different methods and discuss how to apply WTP measures in practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Acquisti, A., & Spiekermann, S. (2011). Do interruptions pay off? Effects of interruptive ads on consumers’ willingness to pay. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 25, 226–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2011.04.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Driver, B. L. (1992). Contingent value measurement: On the nature and meaning of willingness to pay. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1, 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(08)80057-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allenby, G. M., Brazell, J. D., Howell, J. R., & Rossi, P. E. (2014). Economic valuation of product features. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 12, 421–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E. W. (1996). Customer satisfaction and price tolerance. Marketing Letters, 7, 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00435742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2003). “Coherent arbitrariness”: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 73–106. https://doi.org/10.1162/00335530360535153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagchi, R., & Cheema, A. (2013). The effect of red background color on willingness-to-pay: The moderating role of selling mechanism. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 947–960. https://doi.org/10.1086/666466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrot, C., Albers, S., Skiera, B., & Schäfers, B. (2010). Vickrey vs. eBay: Why second-price sealed-bid auctions Lead to more realistic price-demand functions. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 14, 7–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. M., DeGroot, M. H., & Marschak, J. (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science, 9, 226–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva, M., Bradley, M., Morikawa, T., Benjamin, J., Novak, T., Oppewal, H., et al. (1994). Combining revealed and stated preferences data. Marketing Letters, 5, 335–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 187–217. https://doi.org/10.1086/209535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenschein, K., Blomquist, G. C., Johannesson, M., Horn, N., & Freeman, P. (2008). Eliciting willingness to pay without bias: Evidence from a field experiment. The Economic Journal, 118, 114–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02106.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borges, A., Babin, B. J., & Spielmann, N. (2013). Gender orientation and retail atmosphere: Effects on value perception. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 41, 498–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, K. J. (2017). Contingent valuation in practice. In A primer on nonmarket valuation (pp. 83–131). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Breidert, C. (2006). Estimation of willingness-to-pay: Theory, measurement, application. Wiesbaden: DUV Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calabuig, F., Núñez-Pomar, J., Prado-Gascó, V., & Añó, V. (2014). Effect of price increases on future intentions of sport consumers. Journal of Business Research, 67, 729–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capra, C. M., Lanier, K. F., & Meer, S. (2010). The effects of induced mood on bidding in random nth-Price auctions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 75, 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2010.04.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carare, O., & Rothkopf, M. (2005). Slow dutch auctions. Management Science, 51, 365–373. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1040.0328.

  • Chan, T. Y., Kadiyali, V., & Park, Y.-H. (2007). Willingness to pay and competition in online auctions. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 324–333. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.2.324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chernev, A. (2003). Reverse pricing and online price elicitation strategies in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 51–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, J., & Rao, V. R. (2003). A general choice model for bundles with multiple-category products: Application to market segmentation and optimal pricing for bundles. Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, R. G., & Taylor, L. O. (1999). Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. The American Economic Review, 89, 649–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Degeratu, A. M., Rangaswamy, A., & Wu, J. (2000). Consumer choice behavior in online and traditional supermarkets: The effects of brand name, price, and other search attributes. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 17, 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8116(00)00005-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhar, R., & Gorlin, M. (2013). A dual-system framework to understand preference construction processes in choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23, 528–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, M. (2007). An incentive-aligned mechanism for conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 214–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, M., Grewal, R., & Liechty, J. (2005). Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.42.1.67.56890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, R. J., & Simon, H. (1996). Power pricing. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, C. (1999). Valuing the benefits of publicly-provided health care: Does ‘ability to pay’ preclude the use of ‘willingness to pay’? Social Science & Medicine, 49, 551–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00173-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong, S., Ding, M., & Huber, J. (2010). A simple mechanism to incentive-align conjoint experiments. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27, 25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dost, F., & Wilken, R. (2012). Measuring willingness to pay as a range, revisited: When should we care? International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29, 148–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2011.09.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiore, A. M., Yah, X., & Yoh, E. (2000). Effects of a product display and environmental fragrancing on approach responses and pleasurable experiences. Psychology and Marketing, 17, 27–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, S., Novemsky, N., Wang, J., Dhar, R., & Nowlis, S. (2009). Opportunity cost neglect. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 553–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabor, A., & Granger, C. W. J. (1966). Price as an Indicator of quality: Report on an enquiry. Economica, 33, 43. https://doi.org/10.2307/2552272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., & Rao, V. R. (1971). Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 355–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1978). Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 103–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1990). Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing, 54, 3–19. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., Krieger, A. M., & Wind, Y. (2001). Thirty years of conjoint analysis: Reflections and prospects. Interfaces, 31, 56–73. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.31.3s.56.9676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, A. (2008). When apple failed. https://www.forbes.com/2008/10/29/apple-product-flops-tech-personal-cx_ag_1030apple, Accessed 18 June 2018

  • Gustafsson, A. (Ed.). (2007). Conjoint measurement: Methods and applications (4th ed.). Berlin u.a.: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halme, M., & Kallio, M. (2011). Estimation methods for choice-based conjoint analysis of consumer preferences. European Journal of Operational Research, 214, 160–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.03.049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, R. W., & Srivastava, J. (2008). When 2+2 is not the same as 1+3: Variations in price sensitivity across components of partitioned prices. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 450–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hampel, S., Heinrich, D., & Campbell, C. (2012). Is an advertisement worth the paper it’s printed on? Journal of Advertising Research, 52, 118–127. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-52-1-118-127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanna, N., & Dodge, R. (1995). Pricing – Policies and procedures. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2013). Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. In C. R. Plott & V. L. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics results (Vol. 1, pp. 752–767). Burlington: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, G. W., Harstad, R. M., & Rutström, E. E. (2004). Experimental methods and elicitation of values. Experimental Economics, 7, 123–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, J. R., & Urban, G. L. (1986). The value priority hypotheses for consumer budget plans. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 446–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, N. R. (2002). Avoiding the pricing trap in qualitative interviews. Marketing Research, 14, 38–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herriges, J. A., & Shogren, J. F. (1996). Starting point Bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30, 112–131. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1996.0008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeffler, S., & Ariely, D. (1999). Constructing stable preferences: A look into dimensions of experience and their impact on preference stability. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8, 113–139. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0802_01.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, E., Menkhaus, D. J., Chakravarti, D., Field, R. A., & Whipple, G. D. (1993). Using laboratory experimental auctions in marketing research: A case study of new packaging for fresh beef. Marketing Science, 12, 318–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstetter, R., Miller, K. M., Krohmer, H., & Zhang, Z. J. (2013). How do consumer characteristics affect the bias in measuring willingness to pay for innovative products? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30, 1042–1053. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Koschate, N., & Hoyer, W. D. (2005). Do satisfied customers really pay more?: A study of the relationship between customer satisfaction and willingness to pay. Journal of Marketing, 69, 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.69.2.84.60760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsee, C. K. (1998). Less is better: When low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11, 107–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jedidi, K., & Jagpal, S. (2009). Willingness to pay: Measurement and managerial implications. In Handbook of pricing research in marketing (pp. 37–60).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jedidi, K., & Zhang, Z. J. (2002). Augmenting conjoint analysis to estimate consumer reservation price. Management Science, 48, 1350–1368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. The American Economic Review, 76, 728–741.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalish, S., & Nelson, P. (1991). A comparison of ranking, rating and reservation price measurement in conjoint analysis. Marketing Letters, 2, 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00664219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalra, A., & Goodstein, R. C. (1998). The impact of advertising positioning strategies on consumer Price sensitivity. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 210. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalwani, M. U., & Silk, A. J. (1982). On the reliability and predictive validity of purchase intention measures. Marketing Science, 1, 243–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaul, A., & Wittink, D. R. (1995). Empirical generalizations about the impact of advertising on Price sensitivity and price. Marketing Science, 14, G151–G160. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.14.3.G151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, R., & Mahajan, V. (1991). A reservation-price model for optimal pricing of multiattribute products in conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 347–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ku, G., Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2005). Towards a competitive arousal model of decision-making: A study of auction fever in live and internet auctions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. S., Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2004). Heart strings and purse strings carryover effects of emotions on economic decisions. Psychological Science, 15, 337–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, T., & Meshkova, Z. (2013). Examining the impact of rich media on consumer willingness to pay in online stores. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12, 449–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2013.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, D. R., Bloch, P. H., & Black, W. C. (1988). Correlates of price acceptability. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 243–252. https://doi.org/10.1086/209161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieven, T., & Lennerts, S. (2013). Measuring willingness to pay by means of the trade-off between free available cash and specific-purpose vouchers. Business Research, 6, 154–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03342747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis, J., Gonzalez-Caban, A., & Gregory, R. (1994). Do reminders of substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent valuation estimates? Land Economics, 70, 499. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J. J., & Woodworth, G. (1983). Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: An approach based on aggregate data. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 350–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. D. (2000). Stated choice methods: Analysis and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D., & Tukey, J. W. (1964). Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, D. W. (2002). The price is right (or is it)? Accurate pricing starts with asking the right questions. Marketing Research, 14, 8–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marn, M. V., Roegner, E. V., & Zawada, C. C. (2003). Pricing new products. McKinsey Quarterly, 3, 40–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazumdar, T., Raj, S. P., & Sinha, I. (2005). Reference price research: Review and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 69, 84–102. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.2005.69.4.84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K. M., Hofstetter, R., Krohmer, H., & Zhang, Z. J. (2011). How should consumers’ willingness to pay be measured? An empirical comparison of state-of-the-art approaches. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 172–184. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.1.172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. C. (2013). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Monroe, K. B. (1973). Buyers’ subjective perceptions of price. Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 70. https://doi.org/10.2307/3149411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorthy, K. S. (1988). Product and price competition in a duopoly. Marketing Science, 7, 141–168. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.7.2.141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, D. G. (1979). Purchase intentions and purchase behavior. The Journal of Marketing, 43, 65–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, H. (2009). Empirische untersuchung zur messung der preiswahrnehmung mittels pricesensitivity-meter. Marketing ZfP, 31, 171–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neill, H. R., Cummings, R. G., Ganderton, P. T., Harrison, G. W., & McGuckin, T. (1994). Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments. Land Economics, 70, 145–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noussair, C., Robin, S., & Ruffieux, B. (2004). Revealing consumers’ willingness-to-pay: A comparison of the BDM mechanism and the vickrey auction. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25, 725–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2003.06.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunes, J. C., & Boatwright, P. (2004). Incidental prices and their effect on willingness to pay. Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 457–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, E., Slovic, P., & Gregory, R. (2003). The role of affect in the WTA/WTP disparity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 309–330. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prelec, D., & Simester, D. (2001). Always leave home without it: A further investigation of the credit-card effect on willingness to pay. Marketing Letters, 12, 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramanujam, M., & Tacke, G. (2016). Monetizing innovation: How smart companies design the product around the Price (1st ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, A. R., & Sieben, W. A. (1992). The effect of prior knowledge on Price acceptability and the type of information examined. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 256. https://doi.org/10.1086/209300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, R. D., Schulze, W. D., & Breffle, W. S. (1996). A test for payment card biases. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 31, 178–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, S. (1996). Ability to pay for health care: Concepts and evidence. Health Policy and Planning, 11, 219–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, S., Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Morwitz, V. (2001). Withholding consumption: A social dilemma perspective on consumer boycotts. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1086/323729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sevdalis, N., & Harvey, N. (2006). Determinants of willingness to pay in separate and joint evaluations of options: Context matters. Journal of Economic Psychology, 27, 377–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2005.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, G., & Zhang, Z. J. (1995). Competitive coupon targeting. Marketing Science, 14, 395–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shogren, J. F., Margolis, M., Koo, C., & List, J. A. (2001). A random nth-price auction. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 46, 409–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H., & Fassnacht, M. (1982). Preismanagement. Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, I., & Drolet, A. (2004). Anchoring effects on consumers’ willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 681–690. https://doi.org/10.1086/425103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1995). The construction of preference. American Psychologist, 50, 364–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. E., & Nagle, T. T. (2002). How much are customers willing to pay? Marketing Research, 14, 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spann, M., Skiera, B., & Schäfers, B. (2004). Measuring individual frictional costs and willingness-to-pay via name-your-own-price mechanisms. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(4), 22–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, V. (1988). A conjunctive-compensatory approach to the self-explication of multiattributed preferences. Decision Sciences, 19, 295–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., van Heerde, H. J., & Geyskens, I. (2010). What makes consumers willing to pay a price premium for national brands over private labels? Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 1011–1024. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.6.1011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terwiesch, C., Savin, S., & Hann, I.-H. (2005). Online haggling at a name-your-own-Price retailer: Theory and application. Management Science, 51, 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1040.0337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urbany, J. E., Dickson, P. R., & Kalapurakal, R. (1996). Price search in the retail grocery market. Journal of Marketing, 60, 91. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Westendorp, P. H. (1976). NSS price sensitivity meter (PSM) – a new approach to study consumer-perception of prices. In Proceedings of the ESOMAR congress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varian, H. R. (1992). Microeconomic analysis. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vickrey, W. (1961). Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. The Journal of Finance, 16, 8–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voelckner, F. (2006). An empirical comparison of methods for measuring consumers’ willingness to pay. Marketing Letters, 17, 137–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2003.09.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, T., Venkatesh, R., & Chatterjee, R. (2007). Reservation price as a range: An incentive-compatible measurement approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 200–213. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.2.200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wertenbroch, K., & Skiera, B. (2002). Measuring consumers’ willingness to pay at the point of purchase. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 228–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winer, R. S. (2005). Pricing. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute for Information Systems and Marketing – Services Marketing, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Wiebke Klingemann & Kai Dominik Füller

  2. Goethe University Frankfurt, Department of Marketing, Frankfurt, Germany

    Ju-Young Kim

Authors
  1. Wiebke Klingemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ju-Young Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kai Dominik Füller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wiebke Klingemann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany

    Christian Homburg

  2. Inst. Informations Systems and Marketing Marketing & Sales Research Group, Karlsruher Institut für Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Martin Klarmann

  3. LS für ABWL und Marketing I, Universität Mannheim, Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

    Arnd Vomberg

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Klingemann, W., Kim, JY., Füller, K.D. (2019). Willingness to Pay. In: Homburg, C., Klarmann, M., Vomberg, A. (eds) Handbook of Market Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05542-8_35-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05542-8_35-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-05542-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-05542-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Business and ManagementReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation