Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management

, Volume 11, Issue 5, pp 562–566 | Cite as

Making qualitative decisions from quantitative cues: Understanding the customers’ willingness to pay

Futures
First Online:
Received:
Revised:

Abstract

It is clear that pricing value is a complex process. Although there are numerous studies on value research with respect to its definition, constructs and theoretical foundations, pricing value can be addressed from multiple perspectives. Value-based research has revealed a number of value frameworks surrounding the concept of customer value and how it should be captured and measured in order to implement optimum pricing strategies. One method discussed extensively in pricing research is attempting to measure the customer's ‘willingness to pay’. In that respect, firms might be able to discover, qualitatively, behavioural patterns of individual consumers from the established quantitative cues and this might inform their long-term pricing strategies.

Keywords

willingness to pay value value-based pricing value-in-use exchange value 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Anderson, J.C., Kumar, N. and Narus, J.A. (2007) Value Merchants: Demonstrating and Documenting Superior Value in Business Markets. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  2. Banfi, S., Farsi, M., Filippini, M. and Jakob, M. (2008) Willingness to pay for energy-saving measures in residential buildings. Energy Economics 30 (2): 503–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker, G.M., Degroot, M.H. and Marschak, J. (1964) Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science 9 (3): 226–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berry, L.L. and Yadav, M.S. (1996) Capture and communicate value in the pricing of services. Sloan Management Review 37 (4): 41–51.Google Scholar
  5. Blocker, C.P. (2010) Modeling customer value perceptions in cross-cultural business markets. Journal of Business Research 64 (5): 533–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cleophas, C. (2012) Multi-agent modelling for revenue management. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management 11 (2): 240–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diamond, P.A. and Hausman, J.A. (1994) Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (4): 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dror, D.M., Radermacher, R. and Koren, R. (2007) Willingness to pay for health insurance among rural and poor persons: Field evidence from seven micro health insurance units in India. Health Policy 82 (1): 12–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Harmon, R., Demirkan, H., Hefley, B. and Auseklis, N. (2009) Pricing strategies for information technology services: A value-based approach. In: R.H. Sprague (ed.) Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hinterhuber, A. (2008) Customer value-based pricing strategies: Why companies resist. Journal of Business Strategy 29 (4): 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Khalifa, A.S. (2004) Customer value: A review of recent literature and an integrative configuration. Management Decision 42 (5): 645–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lovelock, C.H. and Wirtz, J. (2011) Services Marketing: People, Technology, Strategy – Global Edition, 7th edn. New Jersey: Pearson.Google Scholar
  13. Miller, K.M., Hofstetter, R., Krohmer, H. and 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 (1): 172–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Orme, B. (2006) Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research Madison. Wisconsin: Research Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Piercy, N.F., Cravens, D.W. and Lane, N. (2010) Thinking strategically about pricing decisions. Journal of Business Strategy 31 (5): 38–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sanchez-Fernandez, R. and Iniesta-Bonillo, M.A. (2007) The concept of perceived value: A systematic review of the research. Marketing Theory 7 (4): 427–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Scarpa, R. and Willis, K. (2010) Willingness-to-pay for renewable energy: Primary and discretionary choice of British households’ for micro-generation technologies. Energy Economics 32 (1): 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schindehutte, M. and Morris, M.H. (2001) Pricing as entrepreneurial behavior. Business Horizons 44 (4): 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shiroiwa, T., Sung, Y.K., Fukuda, T., Lang, H.C., Bae, S.C. and Tsutani, K. (2010) International survey on willingness-to-pay (WTP) for one additional QALY gained: What is the threshold of cost effectiveness? Health Economics 19 (4): 422–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sichtmann, C. and Stingel, S. (2007) Limit conjoint analysis and Vickrey auction as methods to elicit consumers’ willingness-to-pay: An empirical comparison. European Journal of Marketing 41 (11/12): 1359–1374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Simonson, I. and Drolet, A. (2004) Anchoring effects on consumers’ willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept. Journal of Consumer Research 31 (3): 681–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Skugge, G. (2011) The future of pricing: Outside-in. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management 10 (4): 392–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Smith, G.E. and Nagle, T.T. (2005) A question of value. Marketing Management 14 (4): 38–43.Google Scholar
  24. Smith, J.B. and Colgate, M. (2007) Customer value creation: A practical framework. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice 15 (1): 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Spash, C.L. (2008) Contingent valuation design and data treatment: If you can’t shoot the messenger, change the message. Environment and Planning C, Government and Policy 26 (1): 34–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tang, J., Grenville, A., Morwitz, V.G., Chakravarti, A. and Ülkümen, G. (2009) Influencing feature price tradeoff decisions in CBC experiments. In: Sawtooth Software Conference. Florida: Sawtooth.Google Scholar
  27. Ulaga, W. and Eggert, A. (2006) Value-based differentiation in business relationships: Gaining and sustaining key supplier status. Journal of Marketing 70 (1): 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004) Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing 68 (1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Voelckner, F. (2006) An empirical comparison of methods for measuring consumers’ willingness to pay. Marketing Letters 17 (2): 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Woodruff, R.B. and Flint, D.J. (2006) Marketing's service-dominant logic and customer value. In: R.F. Lusch and S.L. Vargo (eds.) The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate and Directions. New York: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of East Anglia NorwichNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations