IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joreco/v55y2020ics0969698919314122.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fairness perception of ancillary fees: Industry differences and communication strategies

Author

Listed:
  • Chu, Wujin
  • Lee, Jeongmin
  • Baumann, Chris
  • Kang, Christine

Abstract

This study examines fairness perception of ancillary fees across different industries, and ways to communicate ancillary fees in a way that reduces customers' feeling that they are being unfairly treated. Through surveys and consumer experiments, we show that consumers’ perception of fairness decreases as the level of ancillary fees increases, with differences across industries. Also, when the customer is given a cue that the ancillary fees are necessary for low base prices, fairness perception increases, explained by the “dual entitlement†concept. Another effective communication strategy is early disclosure, as opposed to late disclosure which decreases fairness perception and willingness to recommend.

Suggested Citation

  • Chu, Wujin & Lee, Jeongmin & Baumann, Chris & Kang, Christine, 2020. "Fairness perception of ancillary fees: Industry differences and communication strategies," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:joreco:v:55:y:2020:i:c:s0969698919314122
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102092
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969698919314122
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102092?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
    2. Pei, Zhi & Paswan, Audhesh & Yan, Ruiliang, 2014. "E-tailer׳s return policy, consumer׳s perception of return policy fairness and purchase intention," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 249-257.
    3. Xavier Gabaix & David Laibson, 2018. "Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia and information suppression in competitive markets," Chapters, in: Victor J. Tremblay & Elizabeth Schroeder & Carol Horton Tremblay (ed.), Handbook of Behavioral Industrial Organization, chapter 3, pages 40-74, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard, 1986. "Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking: Entitlements in the Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 728-741, September.
    5. Bolton, Lisa E & Warlop, Luk & Alba, Joseph W, 2003. "Consumer Perceptions of Price (Un)Fairness," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 29(4), pages 474-491, March.
    6. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Daniel Kahneman & Richard H. Thaler, 2006. "Anomalies: Utility Maximization and Experienced Utility," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(1), pages 221-234, Winter.
    8. Amar Cheema, 2008. "Surcharges and Seller Reputation," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(1), pages 167-177, February.
    9. Lynn, Michael & Wang, Shuo, 2013. "The indirect effects of tipping policies on patronage intentions through perceived expensiveness, fairness, and quality," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 62-71.
    10. Folkes, Valerie S, 1988. "Recent Attribution Research in Consumer Behavior: A Review and New Directions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 14(4), pages 548-565, March.
    11. Carlson, Jay P. & Weathers, Danny, 2008. "Examining differences in consumer reactions to partitioned prices with a variable number of price components," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(7), pages 724-731, July.
    12. Glenn Ellison & Sara Fisher Ellison, 2009. "Search, Obfuscation, and Price Elasticities on the Internet," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(2), pages 427-452, March.
    13. Nguyen, Bang & Klaus, Philipp “Philâ€, 2013. "Retail fairness: Exploring consumer perceptions of fairness towards retailers’ marketing tactics," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 311-324.
    14. Tuzovic, Sven & Simpson, Merlin C. & Kuppelwieser, Volker G. & Finsterwalder, Jörg, 2014. "From ‘free’ to fee: Acceptability of airline ancillary fees and the effects on customer behavior," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 98-107.
    15. Carlin, Bruce I., 2009. "Strategic price complexity in retail financial markets," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 278-287, March.
    16. Ahmetoglu, Gorkan & Furnham, Adrian & Fagan, Patrick, 2014. "Pricing practices: A critical review of their effects on consumer perceptions and behaviour," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 696-707.
    17. Colin F. Camerer & Richard H. Thaler, 1995. "Anomalies: Ultimatums, Dictators and Manners," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 209-219, Spring.
    18. Dickson, Peter R. & Kalapurakal, Rosemary, 1994. "The use and perceived fairness of price-setting rules in the bulk electricity market," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 427-448, September.
    19. Franziska Völckner & Alexander Rühle & Martin Spann, 2012. "To divide or not to divide? The impact of partitioned pricing on the informational and sacrifice effects of price," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 719-730, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Luo, Anqi & Ye, Tian & Xue, Xunyue & Mattila, Anna S., 2021. "Appreciation vs. apology: When and why does face covering requirement increase revisit intention?," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Johannes Voester & Bjoern Ivens & Alexander Leischnig, 2017. "Partitioned pricing: review of the literature and directions for further research," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 879-931, October.
    2. William J. Allender & Jura Liaukonyte & Sherif Nasser & Timothy J. Richards, 2021. "Price Fairness and Strategic Obfuscation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(1), pages 122-146, January.
    3. Hu Wang & Di Li & Changbin Jiang, 2023. "Online retailers' price structure decisions in competitive markets: A structure–conduct–performance framework," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(2), pages 1125-1141, March.
    4. Jang, Seongsoo & Chung, Jaihak, 2021. "What drives add-on sales in mobile games? The role of inter-price relationship and product popularity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 59-68.
    5. Richards, Timothy J. & Liaukonyte, Jura & Streletskaya, Nadia A., 2016. "Personalized pricing and price fairness," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 138-153.
    6. Fassnacht, Martin & Unterhuber, Sebastian, 2016. "Consumer response to online/offline price differentiation," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 137-148.
    7. Katja Seim & Maria Ana Vitorino & David M. Muir, 2017. "Do consumers value price transparency?," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 305-339, December.
    8. Bennett Chiles, 2021. "Shrouded Prices and Firm Reputation: Evidence from the U.S. Hotel Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 964-983, February.
    9. Huang, Wen-Hsien & Shen, George C. & Liang, Che-Ling, 2019. "The effect of threshold free shipping policies on online shoppers' willingness to pay for shipping," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 105-112.
    10. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    11. Mittal, Divya & Agrawal, Shiv Ratan, 2016. "Price transparency reflects assurance and reliability," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 43-51.
    12. Friesen, Lana & Earl, Peter E., 2015. "Multipart tariffs and bounded rationality: An experimental analysis of mobile phone plan choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 239-253.
    13. Azar, Ofer H., 2014. "Optimal strategy of multi-product retailers with relative thinking and reference prices," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 130-140.
    14. Lunn, Pete & Somerville, Jason J., 2015. "Surplus Identification with Non-Linear Returns," Papers WP522, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    15. Xavier Gabaix, 2017. "Behavioral Inattention," NBER Working Papers 24096, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Lunn, Pete & McGowan, Féidhlim & Howard, Noel, 2018. "Do some financial product features negatively affect consumer decisions? a review of evidence," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number RS78.
    17. Matthew Selove, 2019. "Dynamic pricing with fairness concerns and a capacity constraint," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 385-413, December.
    18. Stephen Martin, 2018. "Behavioral antitrust," Chapters, in: Victor J. Tremblay & Elizabeth Schroeder & Carol Horton Tremblay (ed.), Handbook of Behavioral Industrial Organization, chapter 15, pages 404-454, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Rasch, Alexander & Thöne, Miriam & Wenzel, Tobias, 2020. "Drip pricing and its regulation: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 353-370.
    20. Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Köster, Mats & Peiseler, Florian, 2019. "Attention-driven demand for bonus contracts," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 1-24.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:joreco:v:55:y:2020:i:c:s0969698919314122. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-retailing-and-consumer-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.