Willingness to pay (WTP) is a metric that is widely valued and utilized among both practitioners and academics. However, the conceptualization of WTP is ambiguous, and this ambiguity is reflected across existing methods of measuring WTP. The authors first present a formal mathematical framework that clarifies WTP as a distributional concept—rather than a single number—constructed as a function of customers, comparisons, and situations. The framework further reveals the operation of two comparative mechanisms, direct and indirect, by which situational factors affect WTP. They then introduce a new method to measure WTP—the comparative method of valuation (CMV)—that, unlike existing methods, is designed to account for the inherently comparative and situational nature of WTP. Across nine studies reported in the article and four additional studies in the Web Appendix, the authors (1) examine differences in results between CMV and choice-based conjoint as well as between CMV and the classic Becker–DeGroot–Marschak methodology, (2) demonstrate that CMV is a valid and reliable measure of WTP, and (3) illustrate applications of CMV to managerial problems. This article offers both conceptual clarity and methodological advances to understanding the construction and measurement of WTP for practitioners and academics alike.
AcquistiAlessandroVarianHal R. (2005), “Conditioning Prices on Purchase History,” Marketing Science, 24 (3), 367–81.
2.
AndersonJames C.NarusJames A.NarayandasDas (2009), Business Market Management: Understanding, Creating, and Delivering Value. Pearson Prentice Hall.
3.
BagchiRajeshCheemaAmar (2013), “The Effect of Red Background Color on Willingness-to-Pay: The Moderating Role of Selling Mechanism,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (5), 947–60.
4.
BatemanIanMunroAlistairRhodesBruceStarmerChrisSugdenRobert (1997), “A Test of the Theory of Reference-Dependent Preferences,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112 (2), 479–505.
5.
BeckerGordon M.DeGrootMorris H.MarschakJacob (1964), “Measuring Utility By a Single Response Sequential Method,” Systems Research and Behavioural Science, 9 (3), 226–32.
6.
BergJoyceDickhautJohnMcCabeKevin (2005), “Risk Preference Instability Across Institutions: A Dilemma,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102 (11), 4209–14.
7.
BettmanJames R.LuceMary FrancesPayneJohn W. (1998), “Constructive Consumer Choice Processes,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (3), 187–217.
8.
BordaloPedroGennaioliNicolaShleiferAndrei (2013), “Salience and Consumer Choice,” Journal of Political Economy, 121 (5), 803–43.
9.
BreidertChristophHahslerMichaelReuttererThomas (2006), “A Review of Methods for Measuring Willingness-to-Pay,” Innovative Marketing, 2 (4), 8–32.
10.
CarsonRichard T. (2000), “Contingent Valuation : A User’s Guide,” Environmental Science & Technology, 34 (8), 1413–18.
11.
CostelloJohn P.ReczekRebecca Walker (2020), “Providers Versus Platforms: Marketing Communications in the Sharing Economy,” Journal of Marketing, 84 (6), 22–38.
DostFlorianWilkenRobert (2012), “Measuring Willingness to Pay as a Range, Revisited: When Should We Care?” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29 (2), 148–66.
14.
EtkinJordanRatnerRebecca K. (2012), “The Dynamic Impact of Variety among Means on Motivation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (6), 1076–92.
15.
FengCongFayScottSivakumarK. (2016), “Overbidding in Electronic Auctions: Factors Influencing the Propensity to Overbid and the Magnitude of Overbidding,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (2), 241–60.
16.
GenslerSonjaHinzOliverSkieraBerndTheysohnSven (2012), “Willingness-to-Pay Estimation with Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis: Addressing Extreme Response Behavior with Individually Adapted Designs,” European Journal of Operational Research, 219 (2), 368–78.
17.
GreenPaul E.KriegerAbba M.WindYoram (2001), “Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects,” Interfaces, 31 (3), S56–73.
18.
GreenPaul E.SrinivasanV. (1990), “Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments With Implications for Research and Practice,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (4), 3–19.
19.
HeSharleneAndersonEric T. (2021), “Conceptualizing and Measuring Pathways for How Object Attachment Affects Willingness to Pay (WTP),” Current Opinion in Psychology, 39, 121–24.
20.
HeSharleneSternthalBrian (2023), “Beyond Numbers: An Ambiguity-Accessibility-Applicability Framework to Explain the Attraction Effect,” Journal of Consumer Research, 50 (1), 211–32.
21.
HoffmanElizabethMenkhausDale J.ChakravartiDipankarFieldRay A.WhippleGlen D. (1993), “Using Laboratory Experimental Auctions in Marketing Research: A Case Study of New Packaging for Fresh Beef,” Marketing Science, 12 (3), 318–38.
22.
HomburgChristianKoschateNicoleHoyerWayne D. (2005), “A Study of the Relationship Between Customer Satisfaction and Repurchase Price,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (4), 84–96.
23.
HseeChristopher K. (1996), “The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals Between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67 (3), 247–57.
24.
JedidiKamelZhangZ. John (2002), “Augmenting Conjoint Analysis to Estimate Consumer Reservation Price,” Management Science, 48 (10), 1350–68.
25.
JonesD. Frank (1975), “A Survey Technique to Measure Demand Under Various Pricing Strategies,” Journal of Marketing, 39 (3), 75–77.
26.
KohliRajeevMahajanVijay (1991), “A Reservation-Price Model for Optimal Pricing of Multiattribute Products in Conjoint Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (3), 347–54.
27.
KrishnaAradna (1991), “Effect of Dealing Patterns on Consumer Perceptions of Deal Frequency and Willingness to Pay,” Journal of Marketing Research,28 (4), 441–51.
28.
KuGillianMalhotraDeepakMurnighanJ. Keith (2005), “Towards a Competitive Arousal Model of Decision-Making: A Study of Auction Fever in Live and Internet Auctions,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96 (2), 89–103.
29.
LynchJohn G.Jr.SrullThomas K. (1982), “Memory and Attentional Factors in Consumer Choice: Concepts and Research Methods,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (1), 18–37.
30.
MillerKlaus M.HofstetterRetoKrohmerHarleyZhangZ. John (2011), “How Should Consumers’ Willingness to Pay Be Measured? An Empirical Comparison of State-of-the-Art Approaches,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (1), 172–84.
31.
MonroeKent B. (1990), Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions. McGraw-Hill.
32.
MoorthyK. Sridhar (1984), “Market Segmentation, Self-Selection, and Product Line Design,” Marketing Science, 3 (4), 288–307.
33.
NagleThomas T. (1987), The Strategy and Tactics of Pricing: A Guide to Profitable Decision-Making. Taylor & Francis.
34.
NagleThomas T.HoganJohn E.ZaleJoseph (2010), The Strategy and Tactics of Pricing: A Guide to Growing More Profitably. Prentice Hall.
35.
NamMyungwooWangJingLeeAngela Y. (2012), “The Difference Between Differences: How Expertise Affects Diagnosticity of Attribute Alignability,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (4), 736–50.
36.
NoussairCharlesRobinStephaneRuffieuxBernard (2004), “Revealing Consumers’ Willingness-to-Pay: A Comparison of the BDM Mechanism and the Vickrey Auction,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 25 (6), 725–41.
37.
NunesJoseph C.BoatwrightPeter (2004), “Incidental Prices and Their Effect on Willingness to Pay,” Journal of Marketing, 41 (4), 457–66.
38.
RossiPeter E. (2014), “Even the Rich Can Make Themselves Poor: A Critical Examination of IV Methods in Marketing Applications,” Marketing Science, 33 (5), 655–72.
39.
RuckerDerek D.GalinskyAdam D. (2008), “Desire to Acquire: Powerlessness and Compensatory Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (2), 257–67.
40.
SchmidtJonasBijmoltTammo H.A. (2020), “Accurately Measuring Willingness to Pay for Consumer Goods: A Meta-Analysis of the Hypothetical Bias,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48, 499–518.
41.
SteenkampJan-Benedict E.M.Van HeerdeHarald J.GeyskensInge (2010), “What Makes Consumers Willing to Pay a Price Premium for National Brands over Private Labels?” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (6), 1011–24.
42.
ThalerRichard H. (1985), “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice,” Marketing Science, 4 (3), 199–214.
43.
ThomasManoj (2023), “Heuristic Price Theory: A Model of Pluralistic Price Evaluations,” Consumer Psychology Review, 6, 75–91.
44.
VoelcknerFranziska (2006), “An Empirical Comparison of Methods for Measuring Consumers’ Willingness to Pay,” Marketing Letters, 17 (2), 137–49.
45.
WertenbrochKlausSkieraBernd (2002), “Measuring Consumers’ Willingness to Pay,” Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (2), 228–41.
46.
WittinkDick R.CattinPhilippe (1989), “Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: An Update,” Journal of Marketing, 53 (3), 91–6.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
