IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v31y2012i2p334-350.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Conjoint Model of Quantity Discounts

Author

Listed:
  • Raghuram Iyengar

    (The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104)

  • Kamel Jedidi

    (Columbia Business School, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027)

Abstract

Quantity discount pricing is a common practice used by business-to-business and business-to-consumer companies. A key characteristic of quantity discount pricing is that the marginal price declines with higher purchase quantities. In this paper, we propose a choice-based conjoint model for estimating consumer-level willingness to pay (WTP) for varying quantities of a product and for designing optimal quantity discount pricing schemes. Our model can handle large quantity values and produces WTP estimates that are positive and increasing in quantity at a diminishing rate. In particular, we propose a tractable WTP function that depends on both product attributes and product quantity and that captures diminishing marginal WTP. We show how such a function embeds standard WTP functions in the quantity discount literature as special cases. We also demonstrate how to use the model to estimate the consumer value potential, which is the product of the premium a consumer is willing to pay and her volume potential. Finally, we propose a parsimonious experimental design approach for implementation. We illustrate the model using data from a conjoint study of online movie rental services. The empirical results show that the proposed model has good fit and predictive validity. In addition, we find that marginal WTP in this category decays rapidly with quantity. We also find that the standard choice-based conjoint model results in anomalous WTP distributions with negative WTP values and nondiminishing marginal willingness-to-pay curves. Finally, we identify four segments of consumers that differ in terms of magnitude of WTP and volume potential, and we derive optimal quantity discount schemes for a monopolist and a new entrant in a competitive market.

Suggested Citation

  • Raghuram Iyengar & Kamel Jedidi, 2012. "A Conjoint Model of Quantity Discounts," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 334-350, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:31:y:2012:i:2:p:334-350
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1110.0702
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1110.0702
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.1110.0702?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gerstner, Eitan & Hess, James D, 1987. "Why Do Hot Dogs Come in Packs of 10 and Buns in 8s or 12s? A Demand-Side Investigation," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60(4), pages 491-517, October.
    2. K. Sudhir, 2001. "Competitive Pricing Behavior in the Auto Market: A Structural Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 42-60, January.
    3. Manel Baucells & Rakesh K. Sarin, 2007. "Satiation in Discounted Utility," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 55(1), pages 170-181, February.
    4. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 1998. "Referendum Models and Economic Values: Theoretical, Intuitive, and Practical Bounds on Willingness to Pay," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 216-229.
    5. K. Sudhir, 2001. "Competitive Pricing Behavior in the US Auto Market: A Structural Analysis," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm228, Yale School of Management.
    6. Steven M. Shugan, 1985. "Implicit Understandings in Channels of Distribution," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 435-460, April.
    7. Rao, Vithala R, 1984. "Pricing Research in Marketing: The State of the Art," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(1), pages 39-60, January.
    8. Joseph P. Redden, 2008. "Reducing Satiation: The Role of Categorization Level," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(5), pages 624-634, August.
    9. Kamel Jedidi & Z. John Zhang, 2002. "Augmenting Conjoint Analysis to Estimate Consumer Reservation Price," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(10), pages 1350-1368, October.
    10. Kamel Jedidi & Sharan Jagpal & Puneet Manchanda, 2003. "Measuring Heterogeneous Reservation Prices for Product Bundles," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 107-130, July.
    11. Greg M. Allenby & Thomas S. Shively & Sha Yang & Mark J. Garratt, 2004. "A Choice Model for Packaged Goods: Dealing with Discrete Quantities and Quantity Discounts," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 95-108, June.
    12. Ricardo Montoya & Oded Netzer & Kamel Jedidi, 2010. "Dynamic Allocation of Pharmaceutical Detailing and Sampling for Long-Term Profitability," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 909-924, 09-10.
    13. Min Ding & Rajdeep Grewal & John Liechty, 2005. "Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis," Framed Field Experiments 00139, The Field Experiments Website.
    14. Anja Lambrecht & Katja Seim & Bernd Skiera, 2007. "Does Uncertainty Matter? Consumer Behavior Under Three-Part Tariffs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 698-710, 09-10.
    15. Schlereth, Christian & Stepanchuk, Tanja & Skiera, Bernd, 2010. "Optimization and analysis of the profitability of tariff structures with two-part tariffs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(3), pages 691-701, November.
    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. Roemer, Nils & Müller, Sven & Voigt, Guido, 2023. "A choice-based optimization approach for contracting in supply chains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(1), pages 271-286.
    2. Soheil Ghili & Russ Yoon, 2023. "An Empirical Analysis of Optimal Nonlinear Pricing," Papers 2302.11643, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.
    3. John R. Howell & Sanghak Lee & Greg M. Allenby, 2016. "Price Promotions in Choice Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(2), pages 319-334, March.
    4. Jianqing Fisher Wu & Banafsheh Behzad, 2023. "Optimal three-part tariff pricing with Spence-Mirrlees reservation prices," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 97(2), pages 233-258, April.
    5. Antonello Maruotti & Jan Bulla & Tanya Mark, 2019. "Assessing the influence of marketing activities on customer behaviors: a dynamic clustering approach," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 77(1), pages 19-42, April.
    6. Wen Lin, 2023. "The effect of product quantity on willingness to pay: A meta‐regression analysis of beef valuation studies," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(3), pages 646-663, July.
    7. Schlereth, Christian & Skiera, Bernd & Schulz, Fabian, 2018. "Why do consumers prefer static instead of dynamic pricing plans? An empirical study for a better understanding of the low preferences for time-variant pricing plans," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(3), pages 1165-1179.
    8. Jeffrey Meyer & Venkatesh Shankar & Leonard L. Berry, 2018. "Pricing hybrid bundles by understanding the drivers of willingness to pay," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 497-515, May.
    9. Elliott J. Dennis & Glynn T. Tonsor & Jayson L. Lusk, 2021. "Choosing quantities impacts individuals choice, rationality, and willingness to pay estimates," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 945-962, 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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Ting Zhu & Hongju Liu & Pradeep Chintagunta, 2015. "Wireless Carriers’ Exclusive Handset Arrangements: an Empirical Look at the iPhone," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(2), pages 177-190, June.
    5. Gensler, Sonja & Hinz, Oliver & Skiera, Bernd & Theysohn, Sven, 2012. "Willingness-to-pay estimation with choice-based conjoint analysis: Addressing extreme response behavior with individually adapted designs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(2), pages 368-378.
    6. Nguyen Tien Thong & Hans Stubbe Solgaard & Wolfgang Haider & Eva Roth & Lars Ravn†Jonsen, 2018. "Using labeled choice experiments to analyze demand structure and market position among seafood products," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 163-189, March.
    7. Jeffrey Meyer & Venkatesh Shankar & Leonard L. Berry, 2018. "Pricing hybrid bundles by understanding the drivers of willingness to pay," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 497-515, May.
    8. Dongling Huang & Christian Rojas & Frank Bass, 2008. "What Happens When Demand Is Estimated With A Misspecified Model?," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(4), pages 809-839, December.
    9. 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.
    10. Chan Choi, S., 2017. "Defensive strategy against a private label: Building brand premium for retailer cooperation," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 335-339.
    11. A. Yeşim Orhun & Sriram Venkataraman & Pradeep K. Chintagunta, 2016. "Impact of Competition on Product Decisions: Movie Choices of Exhibitors," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 73-92, January.
    12. Sergio Meza & K. Sudhir, 2006. "Pass-through timing," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 4(4), pages 351-382, December.
    13. Pasquale Schiraldi, 2006. "Second-Hand Markets and Collusion by Manufacturers of Semidurable Goods," Boston University - Department of Economics - Working Papers Series WP2006-028, Boston University - Department of Economics.
    14. Xinbo Hu & Paul J. Zak, 2022. "A Procedure to Set Prices and Select Inventory in Thinly Traded Markets Using Data from eBay," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-8, July.
    15. S. Sriram & Pradeep K. Chintagunta & Ramya Neelamegham, 2006. "Effects of Brand Preference, Product Attributes, and Marketing Mix Variables in Technology Product Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 440-456, September.
    16. Li, Jianbin & Liu, Lang & Luo, Xiaomeng & Zhu, Stuart X., 2023. "Interactive bundle pricing strategy for online pharmacies," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    17. Eggers, Felix & Sattler, Henrik, 2009. "Hybrid individualized two-level choice-based conjoint (HIT-CBC): A new method for measuring preference structures with many attribute levels," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 108-118.
    18. Verboven, Frank & Bourreau, Marc & Sun, Yutec, 2018. "Market Entry, Fighting Brands and Tacit Collusion: The Case of the French Mobile Telecommunications Market," CEPR Discussion Papers 12866, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Claude, DASPREMONT & Rodolphe, DOS SANTOS FERREIRA & Jacques, THEPOT, 2007. "Hawks and doves in segmented markets : a formal approach to competitive aggressiveness," Discussion Papers (ECON - Département des Sciences Economiques) 2007039, Université catholique de Louvain, Département des Sciences Economiques.
    20. O. Cem Ozturk & Sriram Venkataraman & Pradeep K. Chintagunta, 2016. "Price Reactions to Rivals’ Local Channel Exits," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 588-604, July.

    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:inm:ormksc:v:31:y:2012:i:2:p:334-350. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.