All's not fair in pricing: An initial look at the dual entitlement principle

A new theory in economics (Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler, 1986a, b) contends that consumer judgments of seller fairness can explain why sellers in many industries do not raise prices to ration off excess demand. In a small study focusing on automated teller machines (ATM) fees, we obtain empirical support for KKT's prediction that unjustified price increases are perceived as unfair, while cost justification legitimates a price increase in consumers' eyes. We also find, however, that fairness perceptions are not significantly related to behavioral intentions (as the theory would suggest). Many respondents felt the fee was unfair but would not switch banks because of switching costs, while others felt the fee was fair but would switch banks because of the cumulative cost. Research directions are discussed.     

Transaction utility effects when quality is uncertain

The existing literature finds that price discrepancy, which represents the difference between expected and observed price, helps explain brand choice and purchase intention. This effect is often attributed to transaction utility, that is, the incremental utility associated with the surprise of observing a price lower or higher than expected. This research considers the possibility, however, that transaction utility is a less important determinant of choice when quality is uncertain. We propose and find that acquisition utility (perceived value for the money) tends to dominate the explanation of purchase intention, but transaction utility is significant only when consumers are more certain about quality. Our discussion considers the relative role of transaction utility in explaining consumer decision making and how the informative and allocative roles of price might be distinguished. He received his Ph.D. in marketing from Ohio State University and his B.S. from Ohio State University. His research interests include information economics and pricing. Previously, he taught at the University of South Carolina. He has published in theJournal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing, andJournal of Retailing, among others. He received his Ph.D. at the University of South Carolina, his M.B.A. from the University of Georgia, and a B.S. degree from Clemson University. Previously, he taught at the University of Alabama. His research interests include consumer perceptions of value and interpersonal influences. He has published in theJournal of Consumer Research and theJournal of Marketing Research, among others. He received his Ph.D. in marketing from the University of South Carolina and has a Bachelor’s degree in economics from the University of Delhi. His research interests include price bundling, price effects on perceived quality perceptions, and segmentation of business-to-business markets. He has published in theJournal of Business Research and theAdvances in Consumer Research series, published by the Association of Consumer Research. He previously taught on the faculty of Valdosta State University. She received a B.S. in statistics, a Ph.D. in marketing from the University of South Carolina, and a M.S. in statistics from Virginia Polytechnic Institute. She previously taught at Lehigh University. Her research interests include market segmentation, discrete data analysis, and pricing. She has published in theJournal of Marketing Research, as well as in theProceedings of the American Marketing Association and theAssociation for Consumer Research.     

Rational Strategic Reasoning: An Unnatural Act?

We review recent literature on competitive reactions and strategic thinking and offer several observations. Evidence is mounting that strategic thinking is an unnatural act, made difficult by natural individual biases and organizational roadblocks. In addition, it is possible that uncertainty about competitive behavior is caused by and contributes to informal and incomplete competitive intelligence. We propose a simple model which suggests a potential path dependency in a firm's intelligence gathering, driven by the inertia of its past decision-making. Such a path dependency can be broken, however, as evidenced by several examples of firms who have overcome barriers to strategic thinking in creative ways. Paradoxically, though, there are circumstances in which competition is overemphasized in decision-making. Research priorities are discussed.     

Actual and perceived consumer vigilance in the retail grocery industry

Economic theory suggests that price competition is in part driven by actively searching buyers. An exploratory study in a major midwestern grocery market revealed that executives responsible for pricing decisions overestimate the size of the price-driven shopping segment. The reasons behind this perception and its impact on pricing decisions are examined.     

Choice under restrictions

Nearly every decision a person makes is restricted in some way. While we are painfully aware of some of these restrictions, others go largely undetected. This paper presents a conceptual framework for understanding how restrictions interact with situational and individual characteristics, as well as goals to influence behavior. Implications for overlooked research opportunities in choice modeling are presented and discussed.     

Framing effects in mixed price bundling

In mixed price bundling, the consumer has the choice of buying the individual products separately, as part of a bundle with a discounted price, or not purchasing them at all. Framing effects refer to how the price of the bundle is presented to the consumer. Past studies have focused on perceptual measures and aggregate level results, and have only looked at a subset of different types of price framing in any one study. In this paper we use discrete choice data to investigate whether price framing affects choice in mixed price bundles. We find that the joint, integrated frame results in the highest proportion of respondents choosing the bundle and the fewest choosing “none.” When the prices of items in a bundle are itemized, some consumers are more likely to compare prices separately to their reference prices to evaluate the attractiveness of the deal, but this actually reduces the probability of purchasing the bundle. However, the majority of consumers do not use reference prices and instead follow a simple economic choice model.

Behavioral research and empirical modeling of marketing channels: Implications for both fields and a call for future research

Game theoretic models of marketing channels typically rely on simplifying assumptions that, from a behavioral perspective, often appear naïve. However, behavioral researchers have produced such an abundance of behavioral regularities that they are impossible to incorporate into game theoretic models. We believe that a focus on three core findings would benefit both fields; these are: first, beliefs that are held by the various players regarding profit consequences of different actions are incomplete and often biased; second, players’ preferences and optimization objectives are not commonly known; and third, players have insufficient cognitive abilities to achieve optimization objectives. Embracing these three findings shifts the focus from rational decision making to how decision makers learn to improve their decision-making skills. Concluding, we believe that greater convergence of game theoretic modeling and behavioral research in marketing channels would lead to new insights for both fields.