"Pay What You Want" as Threshold Public Good Provision

Prevailing wisdom on “pay what you want” (PWYW) pricing focuses on the influence of altruism or fairness on consumers’ payments. In this paper, we offer a different perspective by demonstrating that, if the seller and consumers interact repeatedly, and future provision of PWYW depends on whether current revenue under PWYW is sufficient for the seller to achieve financial goals, then paying under PWYW can be likened to paying for a threshold public good. Our model implies that continuous provision of PWYW can be profitable even when all consumers are self-interested. We find in two experiments that if there is pre-payment online chat-room-style communication among consumers, then efficient tacit coordination at the payment stage can be accomplished to achieve continuous PWYW provision. We also show experimentally that pre-payment communication can sustain PWYW provision even when consumers have limited feedback about each other’s payments, or limited information about the market.

[1]  Javier A. Barria,et al.  Do consumers pay voluntarily? The case of online music☆ , 2009 .

[2]  M. Brewer In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. , 1979 .

[3]  E. Maskin,et al.  A theory of dynamic oligopoly. , 1989 .

[4]  Leif D. Nelson,et al.  Shared Social Responsibility: A Field Experiment in Pay-What-You-Want Pricing and Charitable Giving , 2010, Science.

[5]  Jennifer L. Berdahl,et al.  Suckers or saviors? Consistent contributors in social dilemmas. , 2008, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[6]  Ju-Young Kim,et al.  Pay what you Want: A New Participative Pricing Mechanism , 2009 .

[7]  Vincent Mak,et al.  Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization Investment Decisions and Coordination Problems in a Market with Network Externalities: an Experimental Study , 2022 .

[8]  D. De Cremer,et al.  Tacit coordination in social dilemmas: the importance of having a common understanding. , 2009, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[9]  L. Putterman,et al.  Communication and punishment in voluntary contribution experiments , 2006 .

[10]  Martin Spann,et al.  Kish: Where Customers Pay As They Wish , 2010 .

[11]  Amnon Rapoport,et al.  Two-person sequential bargaining behavior with exogenous breakdown , 1992 .

[12]  Insaf Bekir,et al.  Substituting piracy with a pay-what-you-want option: does it make sense? , 2014 .

[13]  Wing Tung Au,et al.  Sequential Choice in a Step-Level Public Goods Dilemma: The Effects of Criticality and Uncertainty , 1996 .

[14]  E. Maskin,et al.  Overview and quantity competition with large fixed costs , 1988 .

[15]  H. Laborit,et al.  [Experimental study]. , 1958, Bulletin mensuel - Societe de medecine militaire francaise.

[16]  Weakness of will and the free-rider problem , 1985 .

[17]  Vincent P. Crawford,et al.  A Survey of Experiments on Communication via Cheap Talk , 1998 .

[18]  Leif D. Nelson,et al.  Pay-what-you-want, identity, and self-signaling in markets , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[19]  R. Dawes,et al.  A Conceptual Review of Decision Making in Social Dilemmas: Applying a Logic of Appropriateness , 2004, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[20]  Jordi Tena-Sánchez,et al.  How much would you like to pay? Trust, reciprocity and prosocial motivations in El trato , 2012 .

[21]  Jürgen Scheffran,et al.  The give-or-take-some dilemma: An empirical investigation of a hybrid social dilemma , 2011 .

[22]  Martin Spann,et al.  Pay What You Want as a Marketing Strategy in Monopolistic and Competitive Markets , 2014, Manag. Sci..

[23]  Marco Battaglini,et al.  Cheap Talk with Multiple Audiences: An Experimental Analysis , 2010, Games Econ. Behav..

[24]  Victor W. Pickard Cooptation and cooperation: institutional exemplars of democratic internet technology , 2008, New Media Soc..

[25]  D. Kahneman,et al.  CHAPTER EIGHT. Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking: Entitlements in the Market , 2004 .

[26]  Anita Elberse,et al.  Radiohead: Music at Your Own Price (A) , 2008 .

[27]  R. Gardner,et al.  An Experimental Study of Time-Independent and Time-Dependent Externalities in the Commons , 1997 .

[28]  Christian Traxler,et al.  Norms, moods, and free lunch: Longitudinal evidence on payments from a Pay-What-You-Want restaurant , 2012 .

[29]  John Orbell,et al.  The Minimal Contributing Set as a Solution to Public Goods Problems , 1983, American Political Science Review.

[30]  N. Kerr,et al.  Communication, commitment, and cooperation in social dilemma. , 1994 .

[31]  A. Rapoport Provision of step-level public goods: Effects of inequality in resources. , 1988 .

[32]  Charles R. Plott,et al.  The control of game form recognition in experiments: understanding dominant strategy failures in a simple two person “guessing” game , 2009 .

[33]  W. Chu,et al.  Are Consumers Acting Fairly Toward Companies? , 2012 .

[34]  E. Fehr,et al.  Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments , 1999, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[35]  Faye Steiner Optimal Pricing of Museum Admission , 1997 .

[36]  T. Schelling,et al.  The Strategy of Conflict. , 1961 .

[37]  J. Edney,et al.  The commons problem: Alternative perspectives. , 1980 .

[38]  U. Fischbacher z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments , 1999 .

[39]  Andreas Blume,et al.  The effects of costless pre-play communication: Experimental evidence from games with Pareto-ranked equilibria , 2007, J. Econ. Theory.

[40]  Edward C. Chao,et al.  Generalized Estimating Equations , 2003, Technometrics.

[41]  J. Juris Reflections on #Occupy Everywhere: Social media, public space, and emerging logics of aggregation , 2012 .

[42]  Akshay R. Rao,et al.  The Effect of Prior Knowledge on Price Acceptability and the Type of Information Examined , 1992 .

[43]  C. Cadsby,et al.  Choosing between a socially efficient and free-riding equilibrium: Nurses versus economics and business students , 1998 .

[44]  Rachel Croson,et al.  Step Returns in Threshold Public Goods: A Meta- and Experimental Analysis , 2000 .

[45]  Annie Peng Cui,et al.  To influence or not to influence: External reference price strategies in pay-what-you-want pricing , 2013 .

[46]  Lluís Bru,et al.  A Common Pool Resource Game with Sequential Decisions and Experimental Evidence , 2003 .

[47]  Miles Hewstone 'Us meeting them': Intergroup contact, intergroup anxiety and the reduction of prejudice , 2000 .

[48]  R. Gardner,et al.  Probabilistic Destruction of Common-Pool Resources: Experimental Evidence , 1992 .

[49]  Elinor Ostrom,et al.  Rent dissipation in a limited-access common-pool resource: Experimental evidence , 1990 .

[50]  P. V. Lange,et al.  The psychology of social dilemmas: A review. , 2013 .

[51]  Stefaan Walgrave,et al.  New media, new movements? The role of the internet in shaping the ‘anti‐globalization’ movement , 2002 .

[52]  N. Nikiforakis Feedback, Punishment and Cooperation in Public-Good Experiments , 2008 .

[53]  Huiji Gao,et al.  Harnessing the Crowdsourcing Power of Social Media for Disaster Relief , 2011, IEEE Intelligent Systems.