Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of surcharge on price in online auctions

  • Published:
Electronic Commerce Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We examine auctions for identical items with different surcharges. We find an inverted U-shape relationship between the surcharge amount and the price premium for the auction with the higher surcharge. To explain this pattern, we fit an empirical model with a two-stage process for the consideration of surcharges. In the first stage, consumers choose between two identical auctions, and in the second stage, they determine whether to place a bid. Using a novel online auction dataset that includes search and bids, we find the determinants of both search and bid, and map the relationship between surcharge and expected revenue. We note that the optimal surcharge changes inversely with bidders’ level of experience and the expected number of bidders. The findings show conditions under which consumers fail to accurately process price and surcharge differences.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In mapping perceptions, one must account for valuation-related factors, including expectations about product composition [2], the posted price’s position relative to the consumer’s reference price [24], perceived fairness [22], and the number of surcharges [25], and seller reputation [6].

References

  1. Boone, T., & Ganeshan, R. (2013). Exploratory analysis of free shipping policies of online retailers. International Journal of Production Economics, 143(2), 627–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bertini, M., Ofek, E., & Ariely, D. (2009). The impact of add-on features on consumer product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(1), 17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brown, J., Hossain, T., & Morgan, J. (2010). Shrouded attributes and information suppression: Evidence from the field. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(2), 859–876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Burman, B., & Biswas, A. (2007). Partitioned pricing: Can we always divide and prosper? Journal of Retailing, 83(4), 423–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Carlson, J., & Weathers, D. (2008). Examining differences in consumer reactions to partitioned prices with a variable number of price components. Journal of Business Research, 61(7), 24–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cheema, A. (2008). Surcharges and seller reputation. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(1), 167–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Clark, J. M., & Ward, S. G. (2008). Consumer behavior in online auctions: An examination of partitioned prices on eBay. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 16(1), 57–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dertwinkel-Kalt, M., Köster, M., & Sutter, M. (2019). To buy or not to buy? Shrouding and partitioning of prices in an online shopping field experiment. In CESIFO working paper 7475.

  9. Greenleaf, E. A., Johnson, E. J., Morwitz, V. G., & Shalev, E. (2016). The price does not include additional taxes, fees, and surcharges: A review of research on partitioned pricing. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(26), 105–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Haruvy, E., & Popkowski Leszczyc, P. T. L. (2010). Search and choice in online consumer auctions. Marketing Science, 29(6), 1152–1164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Häubl, G., & Popkowski Leszczyc, P. T. L. (2003). Minimum prices and product valuations in auctions. Marketing Science Institute Reports, Issue 3, No. 03-117, pp. 115–141.

  12. Heckman, J. J. (1976). The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection and limited dependent variables and a simple estimator for such models. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, 5(4), 475–492.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hossain, T., & Morgan, J. (2006). Plus shipping and handling: Revenue (non) equivalence in field experiments on ebay. Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy, 5(2).

  14. Hou, J., & Blodgett, J. (2012). Do bidders compensate for shipping fees in online auctions? Journal of Services Marketing, 26(6), 435–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Koukova, N. T., Srivastava, J., & Steul-Fischer, M. (2012). The effect of shipping fee structure on consumers’ online evaluations and choice. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(6), 759–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kukar-Kinney, M., & Close, A. G. (2010). The determinants of consumers’ online shopping cart abandonment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(2), 240–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee, Y. H., & Han, C. Y. (2002). Partitioned pricing in advertising: Effects on brand and retailer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 13(1), 27–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lewis, M. (2006). The effect of shipping fees on customer acquisition, customer retention, and purchase quantities. Journal of Retailing, 82(1), 13–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lewis, M., Singh, V., & Fay, S. (2006). An empirical study of the impact of nonlinear shipping and handling fees on purchase incidence and expenditure decisions. Marketing Science, 25(1), 51–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Morwitz, V., Greenleaf, E. A., & Johnson, E. J. (1998). Divide and prosper: Consumers’ reaction to partitioned prices. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 453–463.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Orr, A. (2001). E-tailers shifting to for-profit shipping to bolster bottom line. Chicago Tribune, Section, 5(4), 61.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sheng, S., Bao, Y., & Pan, Y. (2007). Partitioning or bundling? Perceived fairness of the surcharge makes a difference. Psychology & Marketing, 24(12), 1025–1041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schindler, R. M., Morrin, M., & Bechwati, N. N. (2005). Shipping charges and shipping-charge skepticism: Implications for direct marketers’ pricing formats. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19(1), 41–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wathieu, L., & Bertini, M. (2007). Price as a stimulus to think: The case for willful overpricing. Marketing Science, 26(1), 118–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Xia, L., & Monroe, K. B. (2004). Price partitioning on the internet. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(4), 63–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Yao, Y., & Zhang, J. (2012). Pricing for shipping services of online retailers: Analytical and empirical approaches. Decision Support Systems, 53(2), 368–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge support from Grant No. 435-2016-0250 from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. McGill University, Bronfman Building, 1001 rue Sherbrooke Ouest, Montreal, QC, H3A 1G5, Canada

    Ernan Haruvy

  2. University of Kansas, Capitol Federal Hall, Room 2178, Lawrence, USA

    Boram Lim

  3. UQ Business School, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia

    Peter T. L. Popkowski Leszczyc

Authors
  1. Ernan Haruvy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Boram Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter T. L. Popkowski Leszczyc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ernan Haruvy.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 42 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haruvy, E., Lim, B. & Leszczyc, P.T.L.P. The effect of surcharge on price in online auctions. Electron Commer Res 23, 1161–1182 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-021-09508-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-021-09508-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation