IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rco/dpaper/193.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Existence and Persistence of the Pay-per-use Bias in Car Sharing Services

Author

Listed:
  • Dowling, Katharina

    (LMU Munich)

  • Manchanda, Puneet

    (University of Michigan)

  • Spann, Martin

    (LMU Munich)

Abstract

A key benefit of using car sharing services (relative to car ownership) is that they are more cost effective. Car sharing firms offer a menu of pricing plans to make this happen. The two most common plans are flat-rate and pay-per-use pricing. However, little is known about how consumers choose among these pricing plans. In this study, we analyze consumers’ choices between pay-per-use and flat-rate pricing using data from a car sharing provider in a large European city. We show that over 40% of customers make nonoptimal pricing plan choices (i.e., they do not choose the cost minimizing plan). In contrast to previous research, we find a prevalent and time-persistent pay-per-use bias; i.e., we find little evidence that consumers “learn”. We propose three potential explanations for the existence and persistence of this bias. First, we suggest that customers underestimate their usage. Second, we propose that customers have a preference for flexibility, leading them to pay more. Finally, we show that the physical context, such as weather, increases the likelihood of a pay-per-use bias. We suggest that the pay-per-use bias may be the prevalent tariff choice bias in the Sharing Economy.

Suggested Citation

  • Dowling, Katharina & Manchanda, Puneet & Spann, Martin, 2019. "The Existence and Persistence of the Pay-per-use Bias in Car Sharing Services," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 193, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
  • Handle: RePEc:rco:dpaper:193
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://rationality-and-competition.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/193.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Szymanowski, Maciej & Gijsbrechts, Els, 2013. "Patterns in consumption-based learning about brand quality for consumer packaged goods," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 219-235.
    2. Benoit, Sabine & Baker, Thomas L. & Bolton, Ruth N. & Gruber, Thorsten & Kandampully, Jay, 2017. "A triadic framework for collaborative consumption (CC): Motives, activities and resources & capabilities of actors," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 219-227.
    3. Lawson, Stephanie J. & Gleim, Mark R. & Perren, Rebeca & Hwang, Jiyoung, 2016. "Freedom from ownership: An exploration of access-based consumption," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 2615-2623.
    4. Katharina Dowling & Daniel Guhl & Daniel Klapper & Martin Spann & Lucas Stich & Narine Yegoryan, 2020. "Behavioral biases in marketing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 449-477, May.
    5. Michelle Andrews & Xueming Luo & Zheng Fang & Anindya Ghose, 2016. "Mobile Ad Effectiveness: Hyper-Contextual Targeting with Crowdedness," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(2), pages 218-233, March.
    6. Michael D. Grubb & Matthew Osborne, 2015. "Cellular Service Demand: Biased Beliefs, Learning, and Bill Shock," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(1), pages 234-271, January.
    7. Farajallah, Mehdi & Hammond, Robert G. & Pénard, Thierry, 2019. "What drives pricing behavior in Peer-to-Peer markets? Evidence from the carsharing platform BlaBlaCar," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 15-31.
    8. Kannan, P.K. & Li, Hongshuang “Alice”, 2017. "Digital marketing: A framework, review and research agenda," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 22-45.
    9. Krämer, Jan & Wiewiorra, Lukas, 2012. "Beyond the flat rate bias: The flexibility effect in tariff choice," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 29-39.
    10. Kenneth E. Train & Daniel L. McFadden & Moshe Ben-Akiva, 1987. "The Demand for Local Telephone Service: A Fully Discrete Model of Residential Calling Patterns and Service Choices," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(1), pages 109-123, Spring.
    11. Raghuram Iyengar & Kamel Jedidi & Skander Essegaier & Peter J. Danaher, 2011. "The Impact of Tariff Structure on Customer Retention, Usage, and Profitability of Access Services," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 820-836, September.
    12. Stefano DellaVigna & Ulrike Malmendier, 2006. "Paying Not to Go to the Gym," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(3), pages 694-719, June.
    13. Stephen Leider & Özge Şahin, 2014. "Contracts, Biases, and Consumption of Access Services," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(9), pages 2198-2222, September.
    14. Eugenio J. Miravete, 2003. "Choosing the Wrong Calling Plan? Ignorance and Learning," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 297-310, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pavel Pelech, 2023. "Marketing Perspectives on Supply and Demand in the Sharing Economy: Who Are the Target Generations?," Central European Business Review, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2023(3), pages 81-101.
    2. Xiaoyu Zhang & Chunfu Shao & Bobin Wang & Shichen Huang, 2022. "The Impact of COVID-19 on Travel Mode Choice Behavior in Terms of Shared Mobility: A Case Study in Beijing, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-19, June.
    3. Hui Li & Yijin Kim & Kannan Srinivasan, 2022. "Market Shifts in the Sharing Economy: The Impact of Airbnb on Housing Rentals," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(11), pages 8015-8044, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jin, Haofeng & Lu, Zhentong & Huang, Liqiang & Dou, Junsheng, 2021. "Not too much nor too little: Salience bias in mobile plan choices," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4).
    2. Katharina Dowling & Lucas Stich & Martin Spann, 2021. "An experimental analysis of overconfidence in tariff choice," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(8), pages 2275-2297, November.
    3. Jin, Haofeng, 2022. "The effect of overspending on tariff choices and customer churn: Evidence from mobile plan choices," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    4. Itai Ater & Vardit Landsman, 2013. "Do Customers Learn from Experience? Evidence from Retail Banking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(9), pages 2019-2035, September.
    5. Stephen Leider & Özge Şahin, 2014. "Contracts, Biases, and Consumption of Access Services," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(9), pages 2198-2222, September.
    6. Nicholas Economides & Katja Seim & V. Brian Viard, 2008. "Quantifying the benefits of entry into local phone service," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(3), pages 699-730, September.
    7. Oren Bar‐Gill & Rebecca Stone, 2012. "Pricing Misperceptions: Explaining Pricing Structure in the Cell Phone Service Market," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 430-456, September.
    8. Fabian Herweg & Konrad Mierendorff, 2013. "Uncertain Demand, Consumer Loss Aversion, And Flat-Rate Tariffs," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(2), pages 399-432, April.
    9. Ariel Casarin, 2014. "Regulated price reforms and unregulated substitutes: the case of residential piped gas in Argentina," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 34-56, February.
    10. Sulser, Pascal A., 2021. "Pay-per-minute pricing: A field experiment comparing traditional and participative pricing mechanisms," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    11. Shy, Oz, 2008. "Measuring the cost of making payment decisions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2411-2416, December.
    12. Seunghee Han & Jooyong Jun & Eunjung Yeo, 2021. "In Pursuit of Sustainable Mobile Policy: A Study of Consumer Tariff Preferences under Uncertainty," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-20, January.
    13. Bjørn-Atle Reme & Helene Lie Røhr & Morten Sæthre, 2022. "Inattention in Contract Markets: Evidence from a Consolidation of Options in Telecom," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 1019-1038, February.
    14. Martins, Lurdes & Szrek, Helena, 2019. "The impact of the decision environment on consumer choice of mobile service plans: An experimental examination," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 20-32.
    15. Tarek Abdallah, 2019. "On the Benefit (Or Cost) of Large‐Scale Bundling," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 28(4), pages 955-969, April.
    16. Laureti, Carolina & Szafarz, Ariane, 2023. "Banking regulation and costless commitment contracts for time-inconsistent agents," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    17. Goswami, Indranil & Urminsky, Oleg, 2021. "Don’t fear the meter: How longer time limits bias managers to prefer hiring with flat fee compensation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 42-58.
    18. Alberini, Anna & Bezhanishvili, Levan & Ščasný, Milan, 2022. "“Wild” tariff schemes: Evidence from the Republic of Georgia," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    19. Griffin, Míde & Lyons, Sean & Mohan, Gretta & Joseph, Merin & Domhnaill, Ciarán Mac & Evans, John, 2022. "Intra-operator mobile plan switching: Evidence from linked survey and billing microdata," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(7).
    20. Schaefers, Tobias & Leban, Marina & Vogt, Florian, 2022. "On-demand features: Consumer reactions to tangibility and pricing structure," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 751-761.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rco:dpaper:193. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Viviana Lalli (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://rationality-and-competition.de .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.