QME

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 321–341 | Cite as

Optimal criteria for selecting price discrimination metrics when buyers have log-normally distributed willingness-to-pay

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

This paper investigates how a monopoly seller should determine the optimal set of pricing variables (pricing metrics) for third-degree price discrimination applications in which buyers have log-normally distributed willingness-to-pay (WTP). In a setup that closely resembles linear and probit regressions, this paper shows that when the monopoly seller is restricted to using one metric and no price discrimination cost exists, the pricing metric that best reduces the residual variance of buyers’ willingness-to-pay is the one that maximizes revenue. Equivalently, the explanatory power of willingness-to-pay is the ordering criterion. This paper also shows that this criterion is not universally true when willingness-to-pay follows other distributions. When the seller incurs price discrimination costs associated with different metrics, the ordering criterion becomes the explanatory power of each pricing metric divided by its cost. This paper also discusses how to apply this model to solve real-world pricing problems with contingent valuation models or using probit regression.

Keywords

Price discrimination Pricing research Promotion Segmentation Probit regression Contingent valuation model 

JEL Classification

M21 M31 L11 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Allenby, G. M., & Rossi, P. E. (1999). Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity. Journal of Econometrics, 89(1–2), 57–78.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, E. T., & Simester, D. I. (2008). Does demand fall when customers perceive that prices are unfair? The case of premium pricing for large sizes. Marketing Science, 27(3), 495–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong, M. (1996). Multiproduct nonlinear pricing. Econometrica, 64(1), 51–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bagnoli, M., & Bergstrom, T. (2005). Log-concave probability and its applications. Economic Theory, 26, 445–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Besanko, D., Dube, J. P., & Gupta, S. (2003). Competitive price discrimination strategies in a vertical channel using aggregate retail data. Management Science, 49(9), 1121–1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolton, R. N., & Myers, M. B. (2003). Price-based global market segmentation for services. Journal of Marketing, 67(3), 108–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cameron, T. A., & James, M. D. (1987). Estimating willingness to pay from survey data — An alternative pre-test-market evaluation procedure. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(4), 389–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, Y., & Iyer, G. (2002). Individual marketing with imperfect targetability. Marketing Science, 21(2), 197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen, Y., Narasimhan, C., & Zhang, Z. J. (2001). Consumer addressability and customized pricing. Marketing Science, 20(1), 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Choudhary, V., Ghose, A., Mukhopadhyay, T., & Rajan, U. (2005). Personalized pricing and quality differentiation. Management Science, 51(7), 1120–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Corts, K. (1998). Third-degree price discrimination in oligopoly: all-out competition and strategic commitment. The Rand Journal of Economics, 29(2), 306–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feinberg, F., Krishna, A., & Zhang, Z. J. (2002). Do we care what others get? A behaviorist approach to targeted promotions. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(3), 277–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greene, W. (2003). Econometric Analysis. Prentice Hall, fifth edition.Google Scholar
  14. Ghose, A. & Huang, K. (2009). Personalized Pricing and Quality Customization. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 18(4), forthcoming.Google Scholar
  15. Hsiao, C., & Sun, B. H. (1999). Modeling survey response bias — with an analysis of the demand for an advanced electronic device. Journal of Econometrics, 89(1–2), 15–39.Google Scholar
  16. Hofstede, F. T., Wedel, M., & Steenkamp, J. M. (2002). Identifying spatial segments in international markets. Marketing Science, 21(2), 160–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huang, K. (2009). Equilibrium Market Segmentation for Targeted Pricing Based on Customer Characteristics. SSRN Working Paper Series.Google Scholar
  18. Keenan, F. (2003). The price is really right with a web-savvy system. Business Week, 3826.Google Scholar
  19. Khan, R. J., & Jain, D. C. (2005). An empirical analysis of price discrimination mechanisms and retailer profitability. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(4), 516–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: entitlements in the market. American Economic Review, 76(4), 728–741.Google Scholar
  21. Krishna, A., Feinberg, F. M., & Zhang, Z. J. (2007). Should price increases be targeted? Pricing power and selective vs. across-the-board price increases. Management Science, 53(9), 1407–1422.Google Scholar
  22. Leslie, P. (2004). Price discrimination in Broadway theater. The Rand Journal of Economics, 35(3), 520–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu, Y., & Zhang, Z. J. (2006). The benefits of personalized pricing in a channel. Marketing Science, 25(1), 97–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Montgomery, A. L. (1997). Creating micro-marketing pricing strategies using supermarket scanner data. Marketing Science, 16(4), 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Park, J. H., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2008). Estimating willingness to pay with exaggeration bias-corrected contingent valuation method. Marketing Science, 27(4), 691–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Plott, C. R., & Zeiler, K. (2005). The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the “endowment effect”, subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. American Economic Review, 95(3), 530–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Png I. and Lehman D. (2007). Managerial Economics. Wiley-Blackwell, 3rd edition.Google Scholar
  28. Rappoport, P., Taylor, L. D., Kridel, D., & Alleman, J. (2004). Estimating the demand for voice over IP services. Berlin, Germany: Fifteenth Biennial Conference of the ITS.Google Scholar
  29. Rochet, J. C., & Chone, P. (1998). Ironing, sweeping, and multidimensional screening. Econometrica, 66(4), 783–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rossi, P. E., McCulloch, R. E., & Allenby, G. M. (1996). The value of purchase history data in target marketing. Marketing Science, 15(4), 321–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schmalensee, R. (1981). Output and welfare implications of monopolistic third-degree price discrimination. American Economic Review, 71(1), 242–247.Google Scholar
  32. Shaffer, G., & Zhang, Z. J. (1995). Competitive coupon targeting. Marketing Science, 14(4), 395–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shaffer, G., & Zhang, Z. J. (2002). Competitive one-to-one promotions. Management Science, 48(9), 1143–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shugan, S. M. (2002). Marketing Science, models, monopoly models, and why we need them. Marketing Science, 21(3), 223–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sonnier, G., Ainslie, A., & Otter, T. (2007). Heterogeneity distributions of willingness-to-pay in choice models. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 5(3), 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thibodeau, P. (2004). IT execs ambivalent about subscription pricing. Computerworld, 38(15), 7.Google Scholar
  37. Thisse, J.-F., & Vives, X. (1989). On the strategic choice of spatial price policy. American Economic Review, 78(1), 122–138.Google Scholar
  38. Varian, H. (1985). Price discrimination and social welfare. American Economic Review, 75(4), 870–875.Google Scholar
  39. Voelckner, F. (2006). An empirical comparison of methods for measuring consumers’ willingness to pay. Marketing Letters, 17(2), 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wertenbroch, K., & Skiera, B. (2002). Measuring consumers’ willingness to pay at the point of purchase. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(2), 228–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Xia, L., Monroe, K. B., & Cox, J. L. (2004). The price is unfair! A conceptual framework of price fairness perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and Department of Information SystemsNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations