Pay-What-You-Want Pricing: Can It Be Profitable?

Author(s):  
Yong Chao ◽  
Jose M. Fernandez ◽  
Babu Nahata
Keyword(s):  
2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rami Zwick ◽  
Vincent Mak ◽  
Akshay Rao

2017 ◽  
Vol 60 (11) ◽  
pp. 29-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Spann ◽  
Lucas Stich ◽  
Klaus M. Schmidt

2012 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 389-417 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco J León ◽  
José A Noguera ◽  
Jordi Tena-Sánchez

Prosocial motivations and reciprocity are becoming increasingly important in social-science research. While laboratory experiments have challenged the assumption of universal selfishness, the external validity of these results has not been sufficiently tested in natural settings. In this article we examine the role of prosocial motivations and reciprocity in a Pay What You Want (PWYW) sales strategy, in which consumers voluntarily decide how much to pay for a product or service. This article empirically analyses the only PWYW example in Spain to date: the El trato (‘The deal’) campaign launched by the travel company Atrápalo, which offered different holiday packages under PWYW conditions in July 2009. Our analysis shows that, although the majority of the customers did not behave in a purely self-interested manner, they nonetheless did so in a much higher proportion than observed in similar studies. We present different hypotheses about the mechanisms that may explain these findings. Specifically, we highlight the role of two plausible explanations: the framing of the campaign and the attribution of ‘hidden’ preferences to Atrápalo by its customers, which undermined the interpretation of El trato as a trust game.


Gestion 2000 ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 15
Author(s):  
Sihem Dekhili ◽  
Chantal Connan-Ghesquiere
Keyword(s):  

1970 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 235-238
Author(s):  
Kyung-Nan Koh
Keyword(s):  

* Comment on Egbert, Henrik, “Pay-What-You-Want Pricing,” in this issue.


2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 1343-1357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ozgun Atasoy ◽  
Carey K Morewedge

Abstract Digital goods are, in many cases, substantive innovations relative to their physical counterparts. Yet, in five experiments, people ascribed less value to digital than to physical versions of the same good. Research participants paid more for, were willing to pay more for, and were more likely to purchase physical goods than equivalent digital goods, including souvenir photographs, books (fiction and nonfiction), and films. Participants valued physical goods more than digital goods whether their value was elicited in an incentive compatible pay-what-you-want paradigm, with willingness to pay, or with purchase intention. Greater capacity for physical than digital goods to garner an association with the self (i.e., psychological ownership) underlies the greater value ascribed to physical goods. Differences in psychological ownership for physical and digital goods mediated the difference in their value. Experimentally manipulating antecedents and consequents of psychological ownership (i.e., expected ownership, identity relevance, perceived control) bounded this effect, and moderated the mediating role of psychological ownership. The findings show how features of objects influence their capacity to garner psychological ownership before they are acquired, and provide theoretical and practical insights for the marketing, psychology, and economics of digital and physical goods.


2018 ◽  
Vol 115 (11) ◽  
pp. 2716-2721 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raghabendra P. KC ◽  
Marcus Kunter ◽  
Vincent Mak

We report a series of experimental studies that investigate the influence of a competition on noncompetitors who do not participate in it but are aware of it. Our work is highly relevant across many domains of social life where competitions are prevalent, as it is typical in a competition that the competitors are far outnumbered by these noncompetitors. In our field experiment involving pay-what-you-want entrance at a German zoo (n = 22,886), customers who were aware of a competition over entrance payments, but did not participate in it, paid more than customers who were unaware of the competition. Further experiments provide confirmatory and process evidence for this contagion effect, showing that it is driven by heightened social comparison motivation due to mere awareness of the competition. Moreover, we find evidence that the reward level for the competitors could moderate the contagion effect on the noncompetitors. Even if an individual does not participate in a competition, their behavior can still be influenced by it, and this influence can change with the characteristics of the competition in an intriguing way.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document