How many litres in a pint again?

Spotted in my local grocery store. What a great bargain.

No, there are not two pints in a litre

Update: perhaps they saw my posting, because prices have now been adjusted to…

…removing the last possible theoretically valid argument for this pricing structure.

When asked about the rationale behind this, the shopkeeper explained that “that’s just the price”.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Attitudes to price fairness

A very typical message from someone on twitter…

Twitter @imannnnnn

Not typical because I only follow people who talk about pricing, and anyone who says I do is lying…

…but typical because fairness is a deeply ingrained norm in pricing, and you need to find out what your customers see as fair.

If you’re a lawyer, you estimate a job at £1200 and then it is much more complicated than you anticipated, you might think it’s fair to charge £2000 to reflect the extra time you have spent. Are you sure your customer agrees? (most won’t)

If you run an online electronics shop and you price a plasma TV at £129.99, then after 240 people order it you realise it was meant to be £1299.99, you might think it’s fair to invoke the “errors and omissions excepted” clause in your terms and conditions (which nobody has read) and cancel the orders. Your customers might not agree. If they don’t, you’ll probably hear about it many times over on blogs, twitter and maybe even from a new group of ex-customers.

Sometimes you might take the risk, increase the price and annoy the customer. It might be worth it. But it might not.

Whatever decision you come to, don’t get the worst of both worlds by getting angry, annoying your customer, and still selling the product at the cheaper price. Whoever the shopkeeper is in the above tweet, he’s probably lost £1.70 and a future customer. What a waste.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Generous offer…?

To be honest, it just makes me suspicious.

20110408-224900.jpg

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

New research: *.99 no longer optimal for prices

The blog has been quiet for a while. I can now tell you the reason for this: I’ve been working on an intensive research project for the last couple of months. The Inon Pricing Research Centre has partnered with three retailers and two major consumer goods manufacturers to carry out the first detailed experimental tests of consumer responses to goods at different numeric price points.

Everyone knows – or thinks they know – that prices such as £1.99, £5.99 or £9.99 are optimal price points for retail goods. Customers read the first digit first, and the last two are ignored – or at least, they have much less cognitive impact. In general, consumers were thought to put a subjective value estimate of about ten per cent less on an item priced at £3.99, than one at £4.00.

However, despite a wide literature on behavioural economics and marketing, and a number of papers on pricing (for example this paper from Marco Bertini at London Business School), this effect has not been properly tested for years, since the advent of modern experimental economics methods. Any tests carried out by retailers in previous decades must be treated with caution – not just because they don’t reflect the state of the art, but because the detailed results and methodologies have mostly been kept behind closed doors. The consumer goods industry is understandably reticent to share the results of its investigations. But we successfully persuaded several companies to participate in this new research, albeit anonymously.

And the results were a surprise. At first we thought that the effect we have discovered was just a previously unnoticed artefact, hidden by the fact that no proper experiment has been published before. But after further exploration, we think it is also an effect of changing consumer preferences. As customers become more aware of marketing tactics and more cynical about any communication from companies, their psychology and behaviour inevitably changes.

So, to the results. The summary points are:

  • Prices ending in .99 no longer have any advantage in consumer value perception, and do not lead to higher sales.
  • The optimal penny value varies by country. In the United States, it is .01. So, instead of $3.99, companies should charge $4.01. In European countries, the optimal price point is different for different product categories, but there is a peak at .04 for many products. So, British or European retailers currently charging, say, £0.99 should increase the price to £1.04.
  • By switching in this way to a “dollar-plus” price instead of “dollar-minus”, retailers canincrease sales volume by an average of 8% and increase profit margins by 1-3%(depending on the exact price point)
  • Consumers, when presented with the new price point, report an increased level of trust and affinity with the brands of the retailer and manufacturer. We believe this arises from the “honesty signal” that comes from abandoning a discredited and manipulative sales practice.

Retailers in the UK will be particularly relieved to see these results, as a 2% VAT rise earlier this year has been absorbed by most retailers instead of being passed onto consumers, hitting profit margins and affecting economic growth. In fact, we have now discovered, consumers are not just willing, but eager, to pay the additional cost. This is partly because of the credibility effect on the brand, and partly because it brings an associated feeling of civic pride – as consumers are able to self-signal their contribution to reducing the government deficit by paying the additional tax.

Building on this insight, we have extended the traditional economic measure of “willingness-to-pay” and developed a new, psychologically based measure, “eagerness-to-pay”. We argue that these results reflect a genuine consumer preference for a higher price point, and therefore that any increases of this type should not be measured as an inflationary increase, but as a rise in consumer welfare. If adopted across the whole of the UK, this price increase would result in economic growth of approximately 1.6%.

By analogy with the established subfield of psychological research known as “reverse psychology”, we propose that this aspect of consumer behaviour be explored under the banner of “reverse behavioural economics”. We are exploring with UCL and other academic partners the viability of establishing a PhD scholarship in the study of reverse behavioural economics.

A paper, “How brand cynicism can lead to price sarcasm“, coauthored by me, colleagues David Allen Green (@davidallengreen) and Shaa Wasmund (@shaawasmund) has been submitted to the Journal of Behavioural Finance and is expected to be published in about twelve months. Please contact me if you’d like a preprint.

This research is part of a broader programme and we expect to publish more results over the coming months. Early results suggest some intriguing conclusions. First, that TV advertising of brands reduces, not increases, consumer awareness. Second, as the retail distribution of fashion goods becomes broader, their sales volume falls, instead of increasing. And third, the most surprising result of all. The current research indicates that, under some circumstances, the demand curve slopes upwards. Simulated market experiments currently taking place in our lab, as well as examination of Web sales data, suggest that – due to network effects and the concept of “cognitive surplus” – the supply curve may in fact have shifted in the last five years, and now slopes downwards.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Pricing links 2011-03-19

Some of this week’s interesting pricing articles from around the Web…

  1. Daniel Hamermesh of Freakonomics is visiting London and is impressed by Fortnum and Mason’s understanding of price discrimination.
  2. From my other blog, an article about pricing of online news and the optimal paywall strategy [long].
  3. Prices for princes: Interfluidity points out that price cannot simply be calculated by discounting future returns, if you are not sure whether you will actually own the future returns. This sort of question makes lots of pricing questions more complicated than classical economics would allow.
  4. xkcd explores some important pricing questions in a profound cartoon [warning: spoiler about Santa Claus]

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Welcome to a Pricing Revolution

It’s time to take back control of pricing.

For too long the accountants have ruled the world of price, with their cost-plus methods and their calculators.

But price is one of the most important aspects of your relationship with your customers. You – the marketing department or the business owner – are the ones who understand your customer’s psychology. You are the ones who can make it compelling for someone to pick up your product and buy it.

You ought to be setting the price, because you know the impact that the right – or wrong – price can make. So you need to take back control. Pricing Revolution is here to give you the tools to do that.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment