Consumer reaction to dynamic pricing
The moderating effect of price position
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14267/VEZTUD.2023.11.05Keywords:
dynamic pricing, fair pricing, price position, willingness to buyAbstract
This research examines the relationship between dynamic pricing, fair pricing perception, and willingness to buy, and tests the moderating effect of price position. Dynamic pricing strategies and price position were applied as stimuli in a quasi-experimental setting, and 387 undergraduate students were surveyed about their airline ticket buying behaviour. Results show that dynamic pricing has a significant effect on perceived fair pricing and, through this, on the willingness to buy. In addition, the price position moderates the association between a dynamic pricing strategy with a decreasing trend and fair pricing perception. In the case of a relative higher market price, this effect is stronger. This study contributes to the existing literature in this field, as it provides a comprehensive categorization of various forms of dynamic pricing, establishes the conceptual framework of this research field, empirically approves the effects of these subcategories, and identifies the moderating role of price position.
Downloads
References
Adaval, R., & Monroe, K. B. (2002). Automatic construction and use of contextual information for product and price evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), 572-588. https://doi.org/10.1086/338212
Armstrong, G., & Kotler, P. (2000). Marketing: An introduction (5th ed.). Prentice Hall. Bolton, E. L., Warlop, L., & Alba, W. J. (2003). Consumer perceptions of price (un)fairness. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 474–491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/346244
Campbell, M. C. (1999). Perception of price unfairness: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 187-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3152092
Campbell, M. C. (2007). “Says Who?!” How the source of price information and affect influence perceived price (un)fairness. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.2.261
Carroll, K., & Coates, D. (1999). Teaching price discrimination: Some clarification. Southern Economic Journal, 66(2), 466-480. https://doi.org/10.2307/1061156
Choi, S., & Mattila, A. S. (2009). Price frame and norm perceptions moderate the fairness of price differences across channels. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 17(1), 37–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679170103
Dodds, W., Monroe, K.B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307-319. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3172866
Draganska, M., & Jain, D. C. (2006). Consumer preferences and product-line pricing strategies: an empirical analysis. Marketing Science, 25(2), 164-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1050.0126
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
Grewal, D., & Lindsey-Mullikin, J. (2006). The moderating role of the price frame on the effects of price range and the number of competitors on consumers’ search intentions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 55-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305280531
Gyulavári, T. (2011). A vállalatok árképzési gyakorlata. Vezetéstudomány/Budapest Business Review, 42(decemberi különszám), 46-52. http://unipub.lib.uni-corvinus.hu/700/1/vt_2011k1p46.pdf
Gyulavári, T., Malota, E., & Hubert, J. (2012). A méltányos árazás dimenziói elméletben és gyakorlatban. In Coopetiton – Verseny és együttműködés a marketingben - MOK 18. országos konferenciája (pp. 410-419). Miskolci Egyetem, Miskolc.
Gyulavári, T., Kolos, K., & Kenesei, Z. (2011). The role of enduring involvement in the relationship between reference price and price acceptance in the context of multichannel choice. Paper presented at the 2nd EMAC Regional Conference on Marketing Theory Challenges in Emerging Societies, Iasi, Romania. http://unipub.lib.uni-corvinus.hu/494/1/Emac_Regional_2011_Gyulavari.pdf
Haws, K. L., & Bearden, W. O. (2006). Dynamic pricing and consumer fairness perceptions. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(3), 304-311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/508435
Huppertz, J. W., Arenson, S. J., & Evans, R. H. (1978). An application of equity theory to buyer-seller exchange situations. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(2), 250- 260. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3151255
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. American Economic Review, 76(4), 728– 741. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1806070
Lee, S., Illia, A., & Lawson‐Body, A. (2011). Perceived price fairness of dynamic pricing. Industrial Management & Data Systems. 111(4), 531-550. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571111133533
Major, B., & Testa, M. (1989). Social comparison processes and judgments of entitlement and satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25(2), 101-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(89)90007-3
Martin, W. C., Ponder, N., & Lueg, J. E. (2009). Price fairness perceptions and customer loyalty in a retail context. Journal of Business Research, 62(6), 588-593. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.05.017
Maxwell, S. (2002). Rule-based price fairness and its effect on willingness to purchase. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(2), 191–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00063-6
Monroe, K. B., Rikala, V., & Somervuori, O. (2015). Examining the application of behavioral price research in business-to-business markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 47, 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.002
Niedrich, R. W., Sharma, S., & Wedell, D. H. (2001). Reference price and price perceptions: A comparison of alternative models. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 339-354. https://doi.org/10.1086/323726
Niedrich, R. W., Weathers, D. R., Hill, C., & Bell, D. R. (2009). Specifying price judgments with range-frequency theory in models of brand choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(5), 693-702. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.5.693
Omarli, S., Claro, D., & Gyulavári T. (2018). Repülőjegyek dinamikus árazásának hatása a fogyasztók által észlelt méltányosságra. Turizmus Bulletin, 18(4), 23-29. https://doi.org/10.14267/TURBULL.2018v18n4.3
Parducci, A. (1965). Category judgment: A range frequency model. Psychological Review, 72(6), 407-418. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0022602
Seele, P., Dierksmeier, C., Hofstetter, R., & Schultz, M. D. (2021). Mapping the ethicality of algorithmic pricing: A review of dynamic and personalized pricing. Journal of Business Ethics, 170, 697-719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04371-w
Tewari, K. J. (2015). Price change strategies over time – using dramatic major changes versus smaller incremental changes. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, 8, 1-18. https://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/141983.pdf
Tsaousoglou, G., Efthymiopoulos, N., Makris, P., & Arigos, E. V. (2019). Personalized real time pricing for efficient and fair demand response in energy cooperatives and highly competitive flexibility markets. Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy, 7(1), 151-162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40565-018-0426-0
Urbany, J. E., Bearden, W. O., & Weilbaker, D. C. (1988). The effect of plausible and exaggerated reference prices on consumer perceptions and price search. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(1), 95-110. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1988-34510-001
Weisstein, F. L., Monroe, K. B., & Kukar-Kinney, M. (2013). Effects of price framing on consumers’ perceptions of online dynamic pricing practices. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41, 501-514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-013-0330-0
Xia, L., Monroe, K. B., & Cox, J. L. (2004). The price is unfair! a conceptual framework of price fairness perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.4.1.42733
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Vezetéstudomány / Budapest Management Review
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors assign copyright to Vezetéstudomány / Budapest Management Review. Authors are responsible for permission to reproduce copyright material from other sources.
