IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ijrema/v29y2012i2p148-166.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring willingness to pay as a range, revisited: When should we care?

Author

Listed:
  • Dost, Florian
  • Wilken, Robert

Abstract

Recent research has conceptualized consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) as a range rather than as a single point. However, there are important gaps in this research stream: The existing method to measure WTP as a range, ICERANGE, features restrictive assumptions and is rather complex, such that it hampers real-world applications. Furthermore, it is unclear what has been measured in the past with point-based methods, compared with WTP ranges; thus, researchers cannot evaluate “traditional” WTP measurements. Most importantly, why should anyone even care about WTP ranges? In making pricing decisions, aggregate-level information is common, and the add-on information contained in individual WTP ranges would seemingly become obsolete when averaging it across consumers. This article addresses all three issues: We show empirically that traditional point-based methods reveal the midpoint of WTP ranges. Our proposed range-based method, which is simpler and less restricted than ICERANGE, achieves comparable performance. We use a Monte Carlo simulation to show that, except for in rather artificial conditions, point-based methods fail to reproduce the revenue-maximizing prices identified by range-based methods. Together, these results deliver a compelling argument for the use of range-based methods to elicit WTP in real-world applications.

Suggested Citation

  • Dost, Florian & Wilken, Robert, 2012. "Measuring willingness to pay as a range, revisited: When should we care?," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 148-166.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ijrema:v:29:y:2012:i:2:p:148-166
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2011.09.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167811612000067
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2011.09.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hauser, John R & Urban, Glen L, 1986. "The Value Priority Hypotheses for Consumer Budget Plans," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 12(4), pages 446-462, March.
    2. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    3. Dubourg & Jones‐Lee & Graham Loomes, 1997. "Imprecise Preferences and Survey Design in Contingent Valuation," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 64(256), pages 681-702, November.
    4. Park, Joo Heon & MacLachlan, Douglas L. & Love, Edwin, 2011. "New product pricing strategy under customer asymmetric anchoring," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 309-318.
    5. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    6. Leeflang, P.S.H. & Wittink, Dick R., 2000. "Building models for marketing decisions: past, present and future," Research Report 00F20, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    7. Min Ding & Rajdeep Grewal & John Liechty, 2005. "Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis," Framed Field Experiments 00139, The Field Experiments Website.
    8. Franziska Voelckner, 2006. "An empirical comparison of methods for measuring consumers’ willingness to pay," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 137-149, April.
    9. Gregory, Robin & Lichtenstein, Sarah & Slovic, Paul, 1993. "Valuing Environmental Resources: A Constructive Approach," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 177-197, October.
    10. James G. March, 1978. "Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of Choice," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 9(2), pages 587-608, Autumn.
    11. repec:dgr:rugsom:00f20 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Kalyanaram, Gurumurthy & Little, John D C, 1994. "An Empirical Analysis of Latitude of Price Acceptance in Consumer Package Goods," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(3), pages 408-418, December.
    13. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    14. Inman, J Jeffrey & McAlister, Leigh & Hoyer, Wayne D, 1990. "Promotion Signal: Proxy for a Price Cut?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 17(1), pages 74-81, June.
    15. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    16. Menon, Geeta & Raghubir, Priya & Schwarz, Norbert, 1995. "Behavioral Frequency Judgments: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Framework," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 22(2), pages 212-228, September.
    17. Dan Ariely & George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 2003. ""Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(1), pages 73-106.
    18. Thomas C. Brown & Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop & Daniel W. McCollum, 1996. "Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 152-166.
    19. Moorthy, Sridhar & Ratchford, Brian T & Talukdar, Debabrata, 1997. "Consumer Information Search Revisited: Theory and Empirical Analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 23(4), pages 263-277, March.
    20. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    21. Rao, Akshay R & Sieben, Wanda A, 1992. "The Effect of Prior Knowledge on Price Acceptability and the Type of Information Examined," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 19(2), pages 256-270, September.
    22. Dong, Songting & Ding, Min & Huber, Joel, 2010. "A simple mechanism to incentive-align conjoint experiments," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 25-32.
    23. Niedrich, Ronald W & Sharma, Subhash & Wedell, Douglas H, 2001. "Reference Price and Price Perceptions: A Comparison of Alternative Models," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(3), pages 339-354, December.
    24. Kamel Jedidi & Sharan Jagpal & Puneet Manchanda, 2003. "Measuring Heterogeneous Reservation Prices for Product Bundles," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 107-130, July.
    25. Bettman, James R & Park, C Whan, 1980. "Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience and Phase of the Choice Process on Consumer Decision Processes: A Protocol Analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 7(3), pages 234-248, December.
    26. Janiszewski, Chris & Lichtenstein, Donald R, 1999. "A Range Theory Account of Price Perception," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(4), pages 353-368, 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. Kiriaki M. Keramitsoglou & Katja Lozar Manfreda & Charalampia Anastasiou & Knut Kalgraff Skjak & Konstantinos P. Tsagarakis, 2018. "Mode comparison study on willingness to buy and willingness to pay for organic foods: paper-and-pencil versus computerized questionnaire," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 587-603, September.
    2. Andreas Pondorfer & Katrin Rehdanz, 2018. "Eliciting Preferences for Public Goods in Nonmonetized Communities: Accounting for Preference Uncertainty," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 94(1), pages 73-86.
    3. Ke, Jing & Khanna, Nina & Zhou, Nan, 2022. "Indirect estimation of willingness to pay for energy technology adoption," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 312(C).
    4. Wilken, Robert & Stimmer, Elena & Bürgin, David, 2022. "Should retailers encourage couples to shop together?," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    5. Dost, Florian & Wilken, Robert & Eisenbeiss, Maik & Skiera, Bernd, 2014. "On the Edge of Buying: A Targeting Approach for Indecisive Buyers Based on Willingness-to-Pay Ranges," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(3), pages 393-407.
    6. Ford, George S., 2021. "Confusing relevance and price: Interpreting and improving surveys on internet non-adoption," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(2).
    7. Erik Maier & Robert Wilken & Florian Dost, 2015. "The double benefits of consumer certainty: combining risk and range effects," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 473-488, December.
    8. Dost, Florian & Geiger, Ingmar, 2017. "Value-based pricing in competitive situations with the help of multi-product price response maps," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 219-236.
    9. Kniebes, Carola & Rehdanz, Katrin & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2014. "Validity of WTP measures under preference uncertainty," Kiel Working Papers 1972, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    10. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & François-Charles Wolff & Jason Shogren & Pascal Gastineau, 2017. "Interval bidding in a distribution elicitation format," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(51), pages 5200-5211, November.
    11. Otto, Philipp E. & Schmidt, Lennard, 2021. "Reservation price uncertainty: Loss, virtue, or emotional heterogeneity?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    12. Rebecca Nana Yaa Ayifah & Emmanuel Ayifah, 2022. "Willingness to pay for COVID‐19 test and vaccine in South Africa and Ghana: A contingent valuation study," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 90(1), pages 3-20, March.
    13. Sunhee Baik & Alexander L. Davis & M. Granger Morgan, 2019. "Illustration of a Method to Incorporate Preference Uncertainty in Benefit–Cost Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(11), pages 2359-2368, November.
    14. Carola Braun & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2016. "Validity of Willingness to Pay Measures under Preference Uncertainty," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.
    15. Casey E. Newmeyer & R. Venkatesh & Rabikar Chatterjee, 2021. "Reservation Prices for Product Portfolios Under Uncertainty: the ICEPORT Approach," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 8(3), pages 51-65, September.
    16. Juan Pérez & Héctor López-Ospina, 2022. "Competitive Pricing for Multiple Market Segments Considering Consumers’ Willingness to Pay," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(19), pages 1-32, October.
    17. Tuo Wang & Michael Y. Hu, 2019. "Differential pricing with consumers’ valuation uncertainty by a monopoly," Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(3), pages 247-255, June.
    18. Michael Löffler, 2015. "Measuring willingness to pay: do direct methods work for premium durables?," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 535-548, December.
    19. Müller, Holger, 2013. "The real-exposure effect revisited — How purchase rates vary under pictorial vs. real item presentations when consumers are allowed to use their tactile sense," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 304-307.
    20. Christian Schlereth & Christine Eckert & Bernd Skiera, 2012. "Using discrete choice experiments to estimate willingness-to-pay intervals," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 761-776, September.
    21. Tully, Stephanie M. & Winer, Russell S., 2014. "The Role of the Beneficiary in Willingness to Pay for Socially Responsible Products: A Meta-analysis," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 255-274.

    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. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    2. Marine Le Gall-Ely, 2009. "Définition, mesure et déterminants du consentement à payer du consommateur : synthèse critique et voies de recherche," Post-Print hal-00522826, HAL.
    3. Hofstetter, Reto & Miller, Klaus M. & Krohmer, Harley & Zhang, Z. John, 2021. "A de-biased direct question approach to measuring consumers' willingness to pay," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 70-84.
    4. Jonas Schmidt & Tammo H. A. Bijmolt, 2020. "Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 499-518, May.
    5. Dost, Florian & Geiger, Ingmar, 2017. "Value-based pricing in competitive situations with the help of multi-product price response maps," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 219-236.
    6. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga Jr., Rodolfo M., 2017. "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266327, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    7. Carola Braun & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2016. "Validity of Willingness to Pay Measures under Preference Uncertainty," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.
    8. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    9. Zuschke, Nick, 2020. "The impact of task complexity and task motivation on in-store marketing effectiveness: An eye tracking analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 337-350.
    10. Kniebes, Carola & Rehdanz, Katrin & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2014. "Validity of WTP measures under preference uncertainty," Kiel Working Papers 1972, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    11. Jayson Lusk & Leatta McLaughlin & Sara Jaeger, 2007. "Strategy and response to purchase intention questions," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 31-44, June.
    12. Sebastian Lehmann, 2014. "Toward an Understanding of the BDM: Predictive Validity, Gambling Effects, and Risk Attitude," FEMM Working Papers 150001, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    13. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    14. Andreas Pondorfer & Katrin Rehdanz, 2018. "Eliciting Preferences for Public Goods in Nonmonetized Communities: Accounting for Preference Uncertainty," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 94(1), pages 73-86.
    15. Jaikumar, Saravana & Sahay, Arvind, 2016. "Effect of Overlapping Price Ranges on Price Perception: Revisiting the Range Theory of Price Perception," IIMA Working Papers WP2016-02-02, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    16. Casey E. Newmeyer & R. Venkatesh & Rabikar Chatterjee, 2021. "Reservation Prices for Product Portfolios Under Uncertainty: the ICEPORT Approach," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 8(3), pages 51-65, September.
    17. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    18. Lillian L. Cheng & Kent B. Monroe, 2013. "An appraisal of behavioral price research (part 1): price as a physical stimulus," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 3(3), pages 103-129, September.
    19. Frank J. van Rijnsoever & Carolina Castaldi, 2008. "Knowledge base, information search and intention to adopt innovation," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-02, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Feb 2008.
    20. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).

    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:eee:ijrema:v:29:y:2012:i:2:p:148-166. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-research-in-marketing/ .

    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.