The Effect of Implicit versus Explicit Comparisons on Temporal Pricing Claims

Existing research has investigated the "pennies-a-day" strategy of reframing an "aggregate" expense as a "per day" expense (Nagle & Holden, 1995; Price 1995; Gourville 1998). This paper extends this research by considering the incremental impact on compliance of explicitly comparing the cost of a transaction to a specific petty cash expense (e.g., a cup of coffee). We show that in the presence of a per day framing of price (e.g., $1 per day), an explicit comparison provides little added value. However, we also show that in the presence of an aggregate framing of price (e.g., $350), an explicit comparison to a petty cash expense is sufficient to generate a "pennies-a-day" perspective. We conclude that it is not the per day framing, per se, which drives "pennies-a-day" effectiveness, but the petty cash comparisons that such a framing either implicitly or explicitly generates.     

Pricing and the psychology of consumption

Most executives know how pricing influences the demand for a product, but few of them realize how it affects the consumption of a product. In fact, most companies don't even believe they can have an effect on whether customers use products they have already paid for. In this article, the authors argue that the relationship between pricing and consumption lies at the core of customer strategy. The extent to which a customer uses a product during a certain time period often determines whether he or she will buy the product again. So pricing tactics that encourage people to use the products they've paid for help companies build long-term relationships with customers. The link between pricing and consumption is clear: People are more likely to consume a product when they are aware of its cost. But for many executives, the idea that they should draw consumers' attention to the price that was paid for a product or service is counterintuitive. Companies have long sought to mask the costs of their goods and services in order to boost sales. And rightly so--if a company fails to make the initial sale, it won't have to worry about consumption. So to promote sales, health club managers encourage members to get the payment out of the way early; HMOs encourage automatic payroll deductions; and cruise lines bundle small, specific costs into a single, all-inclusive fee. The problem is, by masking how much a buyer has spent on a given product, these pricing tactics decrease the likelihood that the buyer will actually use it. This article offers some new approaches to pricing--how and when to charge for goods and services--that may boost consumption.     

The Effects of Monetary Magnitude and Level of Aggregation on the Temporal Framing of Price

Existing research has shown that the pennies-a-day strategy of reframing a large aggregate expense as a small daily expense helps to reduce the perceived cost of a transaction (Nagle and Holden, 1995; Price, 1995; Gourville, 1998, 1999). This paper builds on this research and explores the robustness of the phenomenon across two dimensions – (1) the level of temporal aggregation and (2) the dollar magnitude of the transaction. First, we show that the effectiveness of a pennies-a-day strategy is not limited to per-day framing. Rather, we find a more general phenomenon in which a less aggregate expense is preferred to a more aggregate expense, such that if a per-day framing is preferred to a per-year framing, than a per-month framing also will be preferred to a per-year framing. Second, we show that this effectiveness reverses with the magnitude of the underlying expense, such that while a framing of $1 per day is preferred to one of $365 per year, a framing of $4200 per year is preferred to one of $11.50 per day.     

Eager sellers and stony buyers: understanding the psychology of new-product adoption

Companies that introduce new innovations are the most likely to flourish, so they spend billions of dollars making better products. But studies show that new innovations fail at a staggering rate. While many blame these misses on lackluster products, the reality isn't so simple. The goods that consumers dismiss often do offer improvements over existing ones. So why don't people purchase them? And why do companies keep peddling products that buyers are likely to reject? The answer, says the author, can be found in the brain. New products force consumers to change their behavior, and that has a psychological cost. Many products fail because people irrationally over-value the benefits of the goods they own over those they don't possess. Executives, meanwhile, overvalue their own innovations. This leads to a serious clash. Studies show, in fact, that there is a mismatch of nine to one, or 9x, between what innovators think consumers want and what consumers truly desire. Fortunately, companies can overcome this disconnect. To start, they can determine where their products fall in a matrix with four categories: easy sells, sure failures, long hauls, and smash hits. Each has a different ratio of product improvement to change required from the consumer. Once businesses know where their products fit into this grid, they can manage the resistance to change. For some innovations, major behavior change is a given. In those cases, companies can either wait for consumers to warm to the product, make the improvement so great that buyers get past their apprehension, or try to eliminate the incumbent product. Firms can also try to minimize buyer resistance by making products that are compatible with incumbent goods, seeking out those who are not yet users of the existing product, or finding true believers.     

Holding fast

CEO Peter Walsh faces a classic innovator's dilemma. His company, Crescordia, produces high-quality metal plates, pins, and screws that orthopedic surgeons use to repair broken bones. In fact, because the company has for decades refused to compromise on quality, there are orthopedic surgeons who use nothing but Crescordia hardware. And now these customers have begun to clamor for the next generation technology: resorbable hardware. Resorbables offer clear advantages over the traditional hardware. Like dissolving sutures, resorbable plates and screws are made of biodegradable polymers. They hold up long enough to support a healing bone, then gradually and harmlessly disintegrate in the patient's body. Surgeons are especially looking forward to using resorbables on children, so kids won't have to undergo a second operation to remove the old hardware after their bones heal, a common procedure in pediatrics. The new products, however, are not yet reliable; they fail about 8% of the time, sometimes disintegrating before the bone completely heals and sometimes not ever fully disintegrating. That's why Crescordia, mindful of its hard-earned reputation, has delayed launching a line using the new technology. But time is running out. A few competitors have begun to sell resorbables despite their imperfections, and these companies are picking up market share. Should Crescordia join the fray and risk tarnishing its brand? Or should the company sit tight until it can offer a perfect product? Commenting on this fictional case study are Robert A. Lutz, vice chairman of product development at General Motors; Clayton M. Christensen, the Robert and Jane Cizik Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School; Jason Wittes, a senior equity analyst covering medical supplies and devices at Leerink Swann; and Nick Galakatos, a general partner of MPM Capital.     

Consumer Control and Empowerment: A Primer

This paper introduces consumer empowerment as a promising research area. Going beyond lay wisdom that more control is always better, we outline several hypotheses concerning (a) the factors that influence the perception of empowerment, and (b) the consequences of greater control and the subjective experience of empowerment on consumer satisfaction and confidence.