Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reservation Prices for Product Portfolios Under Uncertainty: the ICEPORT Approach

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Customer Needs and Solutions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study rests on three premises. Consumers often make choice decisions considering multiple products from one or more categories. Consumers’ levels of uncertainty with product performance or their own preference are nuanced in such portfolio-level situations. Under such uncertainty, extant approaches for reservation price elicitation do not suffice for product portfolios. Building on these premises, the authors propose ICEPORT, an approach for Incentive Compatible Elicitation of reservation prices for product PORTfolios. ICEPORT is able to capture the range in a consumer’s reservation prices for each individual product and combinations of products on offer. An empirical application in the context of root beer and cheese puffs, and a replication involving MLB merchandise, demonstrate the superior predictive performance of ICEPORT over several alternatives. The authors note, among managerial implications of ICEPORT, its potential for improving pricing decisions. Limitations of this study and future research directions are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. If bundles can be chosen, each bundle must be defined as an option.

  2. Recent articles such as Desai et al. [7] and Moon and Shugan [8] highlight the sustained interest among academics and practitioners in the pricing of product portfolios and bundles.

  3. In the case of choice within a single category, the proposed approach works as well, with the assumption that at most one brand (from n options) will be selected, treating the options as strong or perfect substitutes.

  4. To simply ask the customer to state up front which of the offerings one would be buy and just implement ICERANGE for that offering would be inappropriate because the customer’s choice depends on one’s RPs for all the products under consideration and their prices. Under the individual rationality and incentive compatibility constraints, the customer could end up not buying any of the offerings if surpluses are negative.

  5. Portfolios of three offerings are commonly encountered (e.g., chips, salsa, and a combination; movie ticket, popcorn, and a combination of the two). However, ICEPORT is not limited to a portfolio with just 3 options, as discussed later in this article.

  6. The SCi measure is at the individual level. The average across respondents is the “flip” of the hit rate, that is, the hit rate = 1 – average SC. We retain the individual-level SCi measure because it allows us to set up more sensitive tests of within-subject differences, which are not possible with aggregate level hit rate measures.

  7. ICERANGE [6] and Dost and Wilken’s [5] BDM-range approach apply for individual products only. Repeated applications of these approaches, one product or bundle at a time, would lead to invalid assessments of RP for reasons discussed earlier. Jedidi et al.’s [24] approach for multiple products was not considered as their focus is more on inferring the market-level RP distributions and not individual-level assessments. Also, their data collection protocol is outside the incentive compatible elicitation framework.

  8. We thank Professor Min Ding, Editor-in-Chief, Customer Needs and Solutions, for his suggestions that led to Tables 6 and 7

References

  1. Varian H (1992) Microeconomic Analysis, 3rd edn. Norton, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  2. Becker GM, DeGroot MH, Marschak J (1964) Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Syst Res Behav Sci 9(3):226–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Park YH, Ding M, Rao VR (2008) Eliciting preference for complex products: a web-based upgrading method. J Mark Res 45(5):562–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wertenbroch K, Skiera B (2002) Measuring consumers’ willingness to pay at the point of purchase. J Mark Res 39(2):228–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dost F, Wilken R (2012) Measuring willingness to pay as a range, revisited: when should we care? Int J Res Mark 29(2):148–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wang T, Venkatesh R, Chatterjee R (2007) Reservation price as a range: an incentive-compatible measurement approach. J Mark Res 44(2):200–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Desai PS, Purohit D, Zhou B (2018) Allowing profitable consumers to bundle themselves: the profitability of family plans. Mark Sci 37(6):953–969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Moon J, Shugan SM (2018) Explaining bundle-framing effects with signaling theory. Mark Sci 37(4):668–681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ariely D, Loewenstein G, Prelec D (2003) Coherent arbitrariness: stable demand curves without stable preferences. Q J Econ 118(1):73–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Luce RD (1959) Individual choice behavior. John Wiley & Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. Urbany JE, Dickson PR, Wilkie WL (1989) Buyer uncertainty and information search. J Consum Res 16(2):208–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Roberts JH, Urban G (1988) Modelling multiattribute utility, risk and belief dynamics for new consumer durable brand choice. Manag Sci 34(2):167–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rust RT, Inman JJ, Jia J, Zahorik A (1999) What you don’t know about customer-perceived quality: the role of customer expectation distributions. Mark Sci 18(1):77–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bordley R (2002) Determining the appropriate depth and breadth of a firm’s product portfolio. J Mark Res 40(1):39–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Day GS (1977) Diagnosing the product portfolio. J Mark 41(2):29–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Guiltinan JP (1987) The price bundling of services: a normative framework. J Mark 51(April):74–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Koukova NT, Kannan PK, Kirmani A (2012) Multiformat digital products: how design attributes interact with usage situations to determine choice. J Mark Res 49(1):100–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bucklin RE, Russell GJ, Srinivasan V (1998) A relationship between price elasticities and brand- switching probabilities. J Mark Res 35(February):99–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Schade C, Kunreuther H (2001) Worry and mental accounting with protective measures. Working paper, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

  20. Frank-Crawford MA, Borrero JC, Nguyen L, Leon-Enriquez Y, Carreau-Webster AB, DeLeon IG (2012) Disruptive effects of contingent food on high-probability behavior. J Appl Behav Anal 45(1):143–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Louviere JJ, Woodworth G (1983) Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. J Mark Res 20(4):350–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Plott CR, Zeiler K (2005) The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the endowment effect, subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. Am Econ Rev 95(3):530–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Inman JJ, McAlister L, Hoyer WD (1990) Promotion signal: proxy for a price cut? J Consum Res 17(1):74–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jedidi K, Jagpal S, Manchanda P (2003) Measuring heterogeneous reservation price for product bundles. Mark Sci 22(1):107–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jedidi K, Zhang ZJ (2002) Augmenting conjoint analysis to estimate consumer reservation price. Manag Sci 48(10):1350–1368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Moorthy S, Ratchford BT, Talukdar D (1997) Consumer information search revisited: theory and empirical analysis. J Consum Res 23(March):263–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ausubel L, Milgrom P (2006) The lovely but lonely Vickrey auction. In: Crampton P, Shoham Y, Steinberg R (eds) Combinatorial Auctions. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  28. Yang L, Toubia O, de Jong MG (2018) Attention, information processing, and choice in incentive-aligned choice experiments. J Mark Res 55(6):783–800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Rao V, Russell G, Bhargava H, Alan Cooke, Derdenger T, Kim H, Kumar N, Levin I, Ma Y, Mehta N, Pracejus J, Venkatesh R (2018) Emerging trends in product bundling: investigating consumer choice and firm behavior. Customer Needs and Solutions 5(1–2): 107–120

  30. Ding M (2007) An incentive-aligned mechanism for conjoint analysis. J Mark Res 44(2):214–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Calder BJ, Phillips LW, Tybout AM (1982) The concept of external validity. J Consum Res 9(3):240–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Blake Parker and Tori Penso for their help with the data collection for this project. Special thanks are due to Professor Isa Halafir for insights on the combinatorial auction.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA

    Casey E. Newmeyer

  2. Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA

    R. Venkatesh & Rabikar Chatterjee

Authors
  1. Casey E. Newmeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Venkatesh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rabikar Chatterjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rabikar Chatterjee.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictionalclaims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Elicitation protocol for the empirical application

This study has three phases:

  • Phase 1: You will be asked to reveal the prices you are willing to pay.

  • Phase 2: You will be given the opportunity to make changes to your responses. Your responses will be finalized at this stage and will be binding.

  • Phase 3: The sealed envelope placed in front of you will be opened. This envelope contains the actual prices for Goose Island hand-crafted root beer and Pirate’s Booty Aged White Cheddar Puffs and for the bundle of Goose Island hand-crafted root beer and Pirate’s Booty Aged White Cheddar Puffs. Depending on your responses and the prices in the envelope, there are two possible outcomes. If the price you are willing to pay is higher than the actual price, you will either be required to purchase Goose Island hand-crafted root beer or Pirate’s Booty Aged White Cheddar Puffs or the bundle of Goose Island hand-crafted root beer and Pirate’s Booty Aged White Cheddar Puffs. If your price is lower than the actual price, you will not be given the option to purchase anything.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Data Elicitation Phase

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Calibration Phase

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Purchase Phase

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Announcement of the Special Offer and Associated Choice

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Newmeyer, C.E., Venkatesh, R. & Chatterjee, R. Reservation Prices for Product Portfolios Under Uncertainty: the ICEPORT Approach. Cust. Need. and Solut. 8, 51–65 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40547-021-00115-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40547-021-00115-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation