Ein empirischer Vergleich von Instrumenten zur Erhebung von Zahlungsbereitschaften

SummaryThe article analyses empirically four methods of measuring willingness to pay (WTP), i.e., directly stated WTP, indirectly stated WTP (employing conjoint analysis), first price auction and Vickrey auction. The sample consists of 1,089 respondents and more than 3,000 individually measured WTP regarding 100 phone minutes for sale. As one result we found that the measured WTP differs significantly and also substantially between different methods. Furthermore, interviews without purchase obligation, i.e., hypothetic questions, have a clear hypothetical bias. The theoretical advantageousness of Vickrey auctions cannot be confirmed.

[1]  V. Srinivasan,et al.  A CONJUNCTIVE-COMPENSATORY APPROACH TO THE SELF-EXPLICATION OF MULTIATTRIBUTED PREFERENCES* , 1988 .

[2]  Bernd Skiera,et al.  Auktionen als Instrument zur Erhebung von Zahlungsbereitschaften , 1999 .

[3]  Bernd Skiera,et al.  Mengenbezogene Preisdifferenzierung bei Dienstleistungen , 1999 .

[4]  lngo Balderjahn,et al.  Der Einsatz der Conjoint-Analyse zur empirischen Bestimmung von Preisresponsefunktionen , 1994 .

[5]  D. Prelec,et al.  Always Leave Home Without It: A Further Investigation of the Credit-Card Effect on Willingness to Pay , 2001 .

[6]  Dick R. Wittink,et al.  Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Europe: Results and critical reflections , 1994 .

[7]  Helen R. Neill,et al.  Hypothetical Surveys and Real Economic Commitments , 1994 .

[8]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem , 1990, Journal of Political Economy.

[9]  Clive W. J. Granger,et al.  Price as an Indicator of Quality: Report on an Enquiry , 1966 .

[10]  William Vickrey,et al.  Counterspeculation, Auctions, And Competitive Sealed Tenders , 1961 .

[11]  M. Ben-Akiva,et al.  Combining revealed and stated preferences data , 1994 .

[12]  Susanne Hensel-Börner,et al.  Validität computergestützter hybrider Conjoint-Analysen , 2000 .

[13]  Klaus Backhaus,et al.  Limit-Conjoint-Analyse , 1998 .

[14]  Bruce L. Stern,et al.  Research for Marketing Decisions , 1978 .

[15]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data , 1983 .

[16]  M. Degroot,et al.  Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. , 1964, Behavioral science.

[17]  Shlomo Kalish,et al.  A comparison of ranking, rating and reservation price measurement in conjoint analysis , 1991 .

[18]  Ronald M. Harstad,et al.  Information Impact and Allocation Rules in Auctions with Affiliated Private Values: A Laboratory Study , 1987 .

[19]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice , 1990 .

[20]  Cynthia Barnhart,et al.  Consumption Self-Control by Rationing Purchase Quantities of Virtue and Vice , 1998 .

[21]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Completely Unacceptable Levels in Conjoint Analysis: A Cautionary Note , 1988 .

[22]  B. Skiera,et al.  Measuring Consumers' Willingness to Pay at the Point of Purchase , 2002 .

[23]  Allan D. Shocker,et al.  Estimating the weights for multiple attributes in a composite criterion using pairwise judgments , 1973 .

[24]  Dale J. Menkhaus,et al.  Using Laboratory Experimental Auctions in Marketing Research: A Case Study of New Packaging for Fresh Beef , 1993 .