IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/jorapm/v16y2017i1d10.1057_s41272-017-0078-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Price fairness and PWYW (pay what you want): a behavioral economics perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Jin Young Chung

    (Incheon National University)

Abstract

This study proposes a conceptual framework to clarify what leads to successful implementation of the pay what you want (PWYW) pricing mechanism. Psychological factors from the behavioral economics perspective are included in the framework based on the proposition that they play a role in determining how much a consumer will pay. PWYW refers to a participative pricing model in which a consumer can take full control over the price. The goals of this value-based pricing strategy are in line with the goals of revenue management—increasing the opportunity for greater revenues and higher customer satisfaction by understanding consumers’ perceived value. A meta-analysis of real-world examples identifies components, including price fairness perception that can lead people to pay something greater than zero under PWYW.

Suggested Citation

  • Jin Young Chung, 2017. "Price fairness and PWYW (pay what you want): a behavioral economics perspective," Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 16(1), pages 40-55, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:jorapm:v:16:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1057_s41272-017-0078-0
    DOI: 10.1057/s41272-017-0078-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41272-017-0078-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41272-017-0078-0?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. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    2. Kelly L. Haws & William O. Bearden, 2006. "Dynamic Pricing and Consumer Fairness Perceptions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 33(3), pages 304-311, October.
    3. Regner, Tobias & Barria, Javier A., 2009. "Do consumers pay voluntarily? The case of online music," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 395-406, August.
    4. Andreoni, James, 1989. "Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(6), pages 1447-1458, December.
    5. Kreps, David M. & Wilson, Robert, 1982. "Reputation and imperfect information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 253-279, August.
    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. Klaus M. Schmidt & Martin Spann & Robert Zeithammer, 2015. "Pay What You Want as a Marketing Strategy in Monopolistic and Competitive Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1217-1236, June.
    8. 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.
    9. Riener, Gerhard & Traxler, Christian, 2012. "Norms, moods, and free lunch: Longitudinal evidence on payments from a Pay-What-You-Want restaurant," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 476-483.
    10. Vaidyanathan, Rajiv & Aggarwal, Praveen, 2003. "Who is the fairest of them all? An attributional approach to price fairness perceptions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(6), pages 453-463, June.
    11. McGraw, A Peter & Tetlock, Philip E & Kristel, Orie V, 2003. "The Limits of Fungibility: Relational Schemata and the Value of Things," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(2), pages 219-229, September.
    12. Rabin, Matthew, 1993. "Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1281-1302, December.
    13. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    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. Guang Yang & Mulin Liu & Mei Cai & Qihua Yin, 2024. "An analytical game perspective model for pay-what-you-want pricing schemes considering consumer fairness," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 345-365, December.
    2. Vahid Ashrafimoghari & Jordan W. Suchow, 2022. "A Game-theoretic Model of the Consumer Behavior Under Pay-What-You-Want Pricing Strategy," Papers 2207.08923, arXiv.org.
    3. Rabbanee, Fazlul K. & Roy, Rajat & Sharma, Piyush, 2022. "Contextual differences in the moderating effects of price consciousness and social desirability in pay-what-you-want (PWYW) pricing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 13-25.
    4. Rafael Luis Wagner, 2019. "Lowering consumers’ price image without lowering their internal reference price: the role of pay-what-you-want pricing mechanism," Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(4), pages 332-341, August.
    5. Jordi Tena‐Sánchez & Francisco J. León‐Medina & José A. Noguera, 2020. "Empathic cultural consumers: Pay what you want in the theater," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(4), pages 1213-1245, December.
    6. Nikolai Dokuchaev, 2019. "A gap between rational annuitization price for producer and price for customer," Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(2), pages 147-154, April.
    7. Nikolai Dokuchaev, 2018. "On a gap between rational annuitization price for producer and price for customer," Papers 1809.08960, arXiv.org.

    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. Ranjit M. Christopher & Fernando S. Machado, 2019. "Consumer response to design variations in pay-what-you-want pricing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 879-898, September.
    2. 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.
    3. Saccardo, Silvia & Li, Charis X. & Samek, Anya & Gneezy, Ayelet, 2021. "Nudging generosity in consumer elective pricing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 91-104.
    4. Yosuke Hashidate, 2018. "Social Image Concern and Reference Point Formation," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-1085, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    5. Breitmoser, Yves & Vorjohann, Pauline, 2018. "Welfare-Based Altruism," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 89, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    6. Byung Cho Kim & So Eun Park & Detmar W. Straub, 2022. "Pay-What-You-Want Pricing in the Digital Product Marketplace: A Feasible Alternative to Piracy Prevention?," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(3), pages 784-793, September.
    7. Christoph Feldhaus & Tassilo Sobotta & Peter Werner, 2019. "Norm Uncertainty and Voluntary Payments in the Field," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1855-1866, April.
    8. Ambrus, Attila & Pathak, Parag A., 2011. "Cooperation over finite horizons: A theory and experiments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 500-512.
    9. Antonides, Gerrit & Kroft, Maaike, 2005. "Fairness judgments in household decision making," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 902-913, December.
    10. He, Haoran & Wu, Keyu, 2016. "Choice set, relative income, and inequity aversion: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 177-193.
    11. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, "undated". "Why Social Preferences Matter - The Impact of Non-Selfish Motives on Competition," IEW - Working Papers 084, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    12. Smith, Vernon L., 2005. "Behavioral economics research and the foundations of economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 135-150, March.
    13. Samahita Margaret, 2020. "Pay-What-You-Want in Competition," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 20(1), pages 1-16, January.
    14. Gill, David & Stone, Rebecca, 2010. "Fairness and desert in tournaments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 346-364, July.
    15. Klaus M. Schmidt & Martin Spann & Robert Zeithammer, 2015. "Pay What You Want as a Marketing Strategy in Monopolistic and Competitive Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1217-1236, June.
    16. Miklós Antal & Ardjan Gazheli & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2012. "Behavioural Foundations of Sustainability Transitions. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 3," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 46424.
    17. Bruno S. Frey & David A. Savage & Benno Torgler, 2011. "Behavior under Extreme Conditions: The Titanic Disaster," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(1), pages 209-222, Winter.
    18. Kumar, Pradeep & Kant, Shashi, 2016. "Revealed social preferences and joint forest management outcomes," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 37-45.
    19. Kai Barron, 2021. "Belief updating: does the ‘good-news, bad-news’ asymmetry extend to purely financial domains?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 31-58, March.
    20. Matthias Greiff & Henrik Egbert & Kreshnik Xhangolli, 2014. "Pay What You Want – But Pay Enough! Information Asymmetries and PWYW Pricing," Management & Marketing, Economic Publishing House, vol. 9(2), Summer.

    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:pal:jorapm:v:16:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1057_s41272-017-0078-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave.com .

    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.