Reto Hofstetter

How Should Consumers' Willingness to Pay Be Measured? An Empirical Comparison of State-of-the-Art Approaches

This study compares the performance of four commonly used approaches to measure consumers’ willingness to pay with real purchase data (REAL): the open-ended (OE) question format; choice-based conjoint (CBC) analysis; Becker, DeGroot, and Marschaks (BDM) incentive-compatible mechanism; and incentive-aligned choice-based conjoint (ICBC) analysis. With this five-in-one approach, the authors test the relative strengths of the four measurement methods, using REAL as the benchmark, on the basis of statistical criteria and decision-relevant metrics. The results indicate that the BDM and ICBC approaches can pass statistical and decision-oriented tests. The authors find that respondents are more price sensitive in incentive-aligned settings than in non-incentive-aligned settings and the REAL setting. Furthermore, they find a large number of “none” choices under ICBC than under hypothetical conjoint analysis. This study uncovers an intriguing possibility: Even when the OE format and CBC analysis generate hypothetical bias, they may still lead to the right demand curves and right pricing decisions.

Big Data aus dem Produktkonfigurator: Entscheidungsunterstützung für Kunden und Basis für Customer Insights

Immer mehr Unternehmen motivieren Kunden dazu, ihre Wunschprodukte online zu konfigurieren (Duray, Ward, Milligan, & Berry, 2000). In beinahe allen Industrien wird den Kunden die Moglichkeit geboten, Taschen, Jacken, Schuhe, Uhren und Fahrzeuge selbstandig zu gestalten beziehungsweise zusammen zu stellen. Der ausgedehnte Computer- und Internetzugang verbunden mit den Fortschritten in der Produktionstechnologie erleichtert und fordert diesen Trend zusatzlich (Coker & Nagpal, 2013). Es wird geschatzt, dass weltweit mehr als 40.000 dieser Online-Konfiguratoren die individuelle Produktgestaltung unterstutzen (www.configurator-database.com).

Measuring Consumers’ Willingness to Pay. Which Method Fits Best?

Abstract Gauging the maximum willingness to pay (WTP) of a product accurately is a critical success factor that determines not only market performance but also financial results. A number of approaches have therefore been developed to accurately estimate consumers’ willingness to pay. Here, four commonly used measurement approaches are compared using real purchase data as a benchmark. The relative strengths of each method are analyzed on the basis of statistical criteria and, more importantly, on their potential to predict managerially relevant criteria such as optimal price, quantity and profit. The results show a slight advantage of incentive-aligned approaches though the market settings need to be considered to choose the best-fitting procedure

Temporary Sharing Prompts Unrestrained Disclosures That Leave Lasting Negative Impressions

Significance Relative to traditional, offline forms of communication, there is an enhanced permanence to digital sharing. Digital disclosures can come back to haunt, making it challenging for people to manage the impressions they make upon others. Nine studies show that, paradoxically, these challenges can be exacerbated by temporary-sharing technologies. Temporary sharing reduces privacy concerns, in turn increasing disclosure of potentially compromising information (in the form of uninhibited selfies). Recipients attribute these indiscretions to sharers’ bad judgment, failing to appreciate the situational influence—the temporariness of the sharing platform—on sharers’ disclosures. Sharers do not anticipate this consequence, mistakenly believing that recipients will attribute their disclosure decisions to the (temporary) platform on which they chose to send the photographs. With the advent of social media, the impressions people make on others are based increasingly on their digital disclosures. However, digital disclosures can come back to haunt, making it challenging for people to manage the impressions they make. In field and online experiments in which participants take, share, and evaluate self-photographs (“selfies”), we show that, paradoxically, these challenges can be exacerbated by temporary-sharing media—technologies that prevent content from being stored permanently. Relative to permanent sharing, temporary sharing affects both whether and what people reveal. Specifically, temporary sharing increases compliance with the request to take a selfie (study 1) and induces greater disclosure risks (i.e., people exhibit greater disinhibition in their selfies, studies 1 and 2). This increased disclosure is driven by reduced privacy concerns (study 2). However, observers’ impressions of sharers are insensitive to permanence (i.e., whether the selfie was shared temporarily versus permanently) and are instead driven by the disinhibition exhibited in the selfie (studies 4–7). As a result, induced by the promise of temporary sharing, sharers of uninhibited selfies come across as having worse judgment than those who share relatively discreet selfies (studies 1, 2, and 4–7)—an attributional pattern that is unanticipated by sharers (study 3), that persists days after the selfie has disappeared (study 5), is robust to personal experience with temporary sharing (studies 6A and 6B), and holds even among friends (studies 7A and 7B). Temporary sharing may bring back forgetting, but not without introducing new (self-presentational) challenges.