Marketing Letters

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 137–149

An empirical comparison of methods for measuring consumers’ willingness to pay

Article

Abstract

A valid procedure for measuring consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) is crucial in designing optimal pricing policies or for estimating demand for new products. Understanding potential sources of differences in WTP estimates that emerge from value elicitation studies constitutes an important step in research on how managers should estimate consumers’ WTP. This research presents an empirical analysis of two potential sources of differences and discusses possible means of mitigating them. We find substantial and significant differences between the WTP reported by subjects when payment of the stated price is real or hypothetical. Notwithstanding the dichotomy between real and hypothetical WTP, we find significant differences among the WTP estimates of a broad range of value elicitation methods.

Keywords

Willingness to pay (WTP) Measuring willingness to pay Pricing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Becker, G.M., DeGroot, M.H., & Marschak, J. (1964). Measuring Utility by a Single-Response Sequential Method. Behavioral Science, 9, 226–232.Google Scholar
  2. Ben-Akiva, M., Bradley, M., Morikawa, T., Benjamin, J., Novak, T., Oppewal, H., & Rao, V. (1994). Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Data. Marketing Letters, 5(4), 335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Botelho, A., & Pinto, L.C. (2002). Hypothetical, real, and predicted real willingness to pay in open-ended surveys: Experimental results. Applied Economics Letters, 9, 993–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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(3), 649–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ding, M., Grewal, R., & Liechty, J. (2005). Incentive-aligned Conjoint Analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frykblom, P. (2000). Willingness to pay and the choice of question format: Experimental results. Applied Economics Letters, 7, 665–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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(3), 318–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Johannesson, M., Liljas, B., & O’Conor, R.M. (1997). Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay: Some experimental results. Applied Economic Letters, 4, 149–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kagel, J.H. (1995). Auctions: A Survey of Experimental Research. In: Kagel, J.H. and Roth, A.E. (eds.), The handbook of experimental economics, Princeton University Press, pp. 501–585.Google Scholar
  10. Kagel, J.H., Harstad, R.M., & Levin, D. (1987). Information Impact and Allocation Rules in Auction with Affiliated Private Values: A Laboratory Study. Econometrica, 55, 1275–1304.Google Scholar
  11. Kagel, J.H. & Levin, D. (1993). Independent private value auctions: Bidder behavior in first-, second- and third-price auctions with varying numbers of bidders. Economic Journal, 103, 868–879.Google Scholar
  12. Kalish, S., & Nelson, P., (1991). A Comparison of Ranking, Rating and Reservation Price Measurement in Conjoint Analysis. Marketing Letters, 2(4), 327–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McAfee, R.P., & McMillan, J. (1987). Auctions and bidding. Journal of Economic Literature, 25, 699–738.Google Scholar
  15. Mitchell, R.C., & Carson, R.T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Neill, H.R., Cummings, R.G., Ganderton, P.T., Harrison, G.W., & McGuckin, T. (1994). Hypothetical Surveys, Provision Rules, and Real Economics Commitments. Land Economics, 70, 145–154.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. Rutström, E.E. (1998). Home-grown values and incentive compatible design. International Journal of Game Theory, 27, 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sattler, H., & Hensel-Börner, S. (2003). A Comparison of Conjoint Measurement with Self-Explicated Approaches. In: Gustafsson, A., Herrmann A., and Huber, F. (eds.), Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications, 3rd ed. Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp. 147–159.Google Scholar
  20. Smith, V.L. (1976). Experimental economics: Induced value theory. American Economic Review, 66(2), 274–279.Google Scholar
  21. Srinivasan, V.S., & Shocker, A.D. (1981). LINMAP IV—Users’ Manual, Linear Programming Techniques for Multidimensional Analysis of Preference Judgments. Google Scholar
  22. Vickrey, W. (1961). Counterspeculation, Auctions and Competitive Sealed Tenders. Journal of Finance, 16, 8–37.Google Scholar
  23. Wertenbroch, K., & Skiera, B. (2002). Measuring Consumers’ Willingness to Pay at the Point of Purchase. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 228–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Marketing and RetailingUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations