Chapter 6. Conclusions and Suggestions
6.2 Suggestions
The results of this study suggest several areas for future research. First, most respondents considered unfair the practice of charging a lower price to those who use price comparison sites than those who do not. Over half of the respondents considered the use of a pop-up window to entice buyers to be fair. These results are surprising since the two methods are essentially the same in that lower prices are offered to those with higher price sensitivity. The different results may originate from a Taiwan
cultural norm. A reviewer of this study indicated that results may vary because the
“actors” are different: in one case an automatic tool exists which collects and
compares prices; in the other a relationship exists between the firm and the consumer.
The customers and the firm have more control on the bargain, or no third party is involved in such negotiation. Future studies may examine perceptions of these pricing methods in other cultures and in more detail.
Second, this study examined many but not all pricing mechanisms and methods of price discrimination. For example, a hotel may ask customers to stay four days when the demand is high for only three days. Or a hotel may ask customers to purchase meal coupons to use in the hotel’s restaurants when making reservations on the popular days. Do consumers consider this type of product bundling to be fair or unfair? While product bundling is not specific to the Internet, this issue deserves careful scrutiny.
Third, how quickly do consumers get frustrated when they encounter frequent price changes? Do they consider such changes fair when they finally see a price decrease after encountering several price hikes? Will they still consider the practice fair when they see a price hike after encountering several price decreases? These and
many other issues are worthwhile avenues for future research since the Internet supports highly flexible price-setting.
References
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. in Leonard Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 2, New York, NY: Academic Press, 267-299.
Anonymous. (1999) The new laws of pricing. Internet World. December 15, 37-38.
Campbell, M. C. (1999). Perceptions of price unfairness: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (2), 187-199.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon,D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001).
Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (3), 425-445.
Cox, Jennifer Lyn (2001), Can Differential prices be fair ? Journal of Product &
Brand Management, 10(5), 264-275.
Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31 (3),
137-150.
Dickson, P. R., & Kalapurakal, R. (1994). The use and perceived fairness of price-setting rules in the bulk electricity market. Journal of Economic Psychology, 15 (3), 427-448.
Dolan, R. J., & Moon, Y. (2000). Pricing and market making on the Internet. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 14 (2), 56-73. HBS 9-500-065
Dolan, R. J., & Simon, H. (1996). Power pricing. New York, NY: The Free Press, 248-298.
Feinberg, F.M., Krishna, A., & Zhang, Z.J. (2002). Do we care what others get ? A behaviorist approach to targeted promotions. Journal of Marketing
Research,39(3), 277-291
Foley, S., Mahmood, T., Bradley S. P., & Ghemawat, P. (1996). Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Harvard Business School #9-794-024.
Frey, B. S., & Pommerehne, W. W. (1993). On the fairness of pricing – An empirical survey among the general population. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 20 (3), 295-307.
Geng, X,; Stinchcombe, M.; & Whinston (2001), A.B. Radically new product introduction using on-line auctions. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, spring, 169-189
Gorman, R.F. & Kehr, J.B. (1992). Fairness as constraint on profit seeking: comment.
The American Economic Review, 82(1), 355-358
Huang, J. H. (2001). Consumer evaluations of unethical behaviors of web sites: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 13 (4), 51-71.
Jasso, G. (1980). A new theory of distributive justice. American Sociological Review, 45 (1), 3-32.
Kachelmeier, S.J., Limberg, S.T., & Schadewald, M.S. (1991). Fairmess in markets : a laboratory investigation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 12, 447-464.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1986a). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. The American Economic Review, 76 (4), 728-741.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1986b). Fairness and the assumptions of economics. Journal of Business, 59 (4), S285-S300.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of choice under risk. Econometrica, 47 (2), 263-291.
Kalapurakal R, Dickson P.R. & Urbany J.E(1991), Perceived Fairness and Dual Entitlement, Advances in Consumer Research 18,788-793.
Kannan, P. K., & Kopalle, P. K. (2001). Dynamic pricing on the Internet: Importance and implications for consumer behavior. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 5 (3), 63-83.
Kauffman, R. J., & Wang, B. (2001). New buyers’ arrival under dynamic pricing market microstructure: The case of group-buying discounts on the Internet.
Journal of Management Information System, 18 (2), 157-188.
Kent B. Monroe.(1973) Buyers’ Subjective Perceptions of Price. Journal of Marketing Research, February 1973, 70-80
Kerlinger F.N (1993) Foundations of behavioral research 3rd. Harcourt Brace College Publishers 507-522
Kimes, S. E. (2002). Perceived fairness of yield management. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 35 (1), 22-29.
Kong, D. (2000). Amazon backs off on price-testing efforts. USA Today, B2, September 29
Kotler Philip (2002), Marketing Management 11th , Prentice Hall
Kristensen, H. (2000). Does fairness matter in corporate takeovers ? Journal of Economic Psychology, 21, 43-56.
Lee, Z., & Gosain, S. (2002). A longitudinal price comparison for music CDs in electronic and brick-and-mortar markets: Pricing strategies in emergent electronic commerce. Journal of Business Strategies, 19 (1), 55-71.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Manjit S. Yadav & Kent B. Monroe.(1993) How Buyers Perceive Savings in a Bundle Price: An Examination of a Bundle’s Transaction Value. Journal of Marketing Research, August,350-358
Maxwell, Sarah Pete Nye, & Nicholas Maxwell (1999), Less Pain, Same Gain: The Effects of Priming Fairness in Price Negotiations, Psychology & Marketing, 16(7),545-562.
Messick, D. M., & Sentis, K. P. (1979). Fairness and preference. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15 (4), 418-434.
Mitchell, E (1990) How not to Raise Prices, Small Business Reports. Nov. 64-67 Molm, Linda D., Nobuyuke Takahashi & Gretchen Peterson (2003), In the Eye of the
Beholder: Procedural Justice in Social Exchange, American Sociological Review, 68(February), 128-152
Nelson, W. R. Jr. (2002). Equity or intention: It is the thought that counts. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 48 (4), 423-430.
Oliver, R.L. & J.E.Swan(1989), Consumer perceptions of Interpersonal Equity and Satisfaction in Transactions : A Field Survey Approach, Journal of
Marketing,53(April),21-35
Piron, R., & Fernandez, L. (1995). Are fairness constraints on profit-seeking important? Journal of Economic Psychology, 16 (1), 73-96.
Rajendran, K.N. & Tellis, G.J. (1994) Contextual and temporal components of reference price. Journal of Marketing,58(1),22-34
Schein, A. (2002). Concern for fair prices in the Israeli housing marketing. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23 (2), 213-230.
Seligman, D. A., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Domain specificity of fairness judgments in economic transactions. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18 (6), 579-604.
Shaw, John C., Eric Wild, & Jason A. Colquitt(2003), To Justify or Excuse? : A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effects of Explanations, Journal of Applied Psychology,88(3), 444-458.
Stephenson W. (1953), The Study of Behavior. Uni. of Chicago Press
Stremersch, Stefan & Gerard J. Tellis(2002), Strategic Bundling of Products and Prices: A New Synthesisfor Marketing, Journal of Marketing,66(1),55-72 Tang F.F. and Xing X.(2001) Will the growth of multi-channel retailing diminish the
pricing efficiency of the web ? Journal of Retailing 77, 319-333
Tomas T. Nagle & Reed K. Holden.(1995), The Strategy and Tactics of Pricing, 2d ed.
Englewood cliffs, NJ., Prentice Hall
Wang, R. (1993). Auctions versus posted-price selling. The American Economic Review, 83 (4), 838-851.
敬啟者：
您好！這是一份學術用途之研究問卷，問卷不具名，答案也沒有對或錯，請 依您的看法放心作答。
謝謝您熱心協助！
國立交通大學管理科學系 黃仁宏教授
博士班學生 張清德
● 問題都和旅館房價有關，假設這些旅館是美國或歐洲的旅館，而您要從台灣 連上旅館的網站訂房。
一、 某城市有甲和乙兩家大旅館，甲旅館正在重新整修，因而暫停營業。乙旅 館的房價原為每天美金$100(約合台幣$3500)，在甲旅館暫停營業的期間，
將房價調為每天美金$120(約合台幣$4200)。此種價格調漲是否公平合理？
非常公平 □ □ □ □ □ 非常不公平
二、 您要預訂某家旅館的房間。假設您知道您的朋友剛剛利用傳真預訂這家旅 館的房間，價格為每天美金$100。您認為如果您利用網路預訂房間，旅館 可節省人力成本約為美金$20，您認為網路上訂房的價格多少，才算公平合 理？
__________________________________
三、 一家渡假旅館宣稱，由於該市即將舉行的慶祝活動，對旅館住房的需求將 高於供給。這家旅館決定要在網路上拍賣慶祝活動期間的房間。這旅館訂
了一個等於市價的底價，也就是每天美金$100，投標的結果，最後成交價 為每天美金$130。您認為這種在網路上拍賣房間是否公平合理？
非常公平 □ □ □ □ □ 非常不公平
四、 一家旅館決定要採用 Priceline.com 這家公司的訂價模式，也就是顧客在 網際網路上提出一個願意住房的價格，然後由旅館決定是否接受此價格。
如果顧客提出一個價格，而旅館接受此價格，則顧客不能說不要了。您知 道附近同等級的旅館，每天的價格為美金$100，因此您提出美金$90 的價 格，然而旅館拒絕此價格。因為該旅館附近的其它旅館都已客滿，您只好 回到原來這家旅館，提出美金$110 的價格，旅館現在接受您的價格。請問 此種訂價方式是否公平合理？
非常公平 □ □ □ □ □ 非常不公平
五、 當顧客連上旅館的網站訂房時，房間的價格是電腦從既定的兩種價格中，任 選一種而出。若某位顧客的價格是較低的那種，則告知顧客旅館正在辦抽獎 給折扣，並恭賀中獎。因此，舉個例子，某位顧客的價格可能是美金$105，
而另外一位顧客的價格可能是美金$95。此種訂價方式是否公平合理？
非常公平 □ □ □ □ □ 非常不公平
六、 當顧客連上旅館的網站訂房時，房間的價格是電腦從既定的兩種價格中，依 旅客過去住房的狀況選一種而出。因此，舉個例子，某位顧客常光顧，價格 是美金$105，而另外一位顧客從未光顧，旅館為了吸引這位顧客，價格是美 金$95。此種訂價方式是否公平合理？
非常公平 □ □ □ □ □ 非常不公平
七、 當顧客連上旅館的網站訂房時，如果直接連上此網站，則房價為每天美金
$100。然而，如果顧客利用其它網站的搜尋工具連上此旅館的網站，則房價 為美金$90。此種訂價方式是否公平合理？
非常公平 □ □ □ □ □ 非常不公平
個人基本資料
1. 性別： 1.男 2.女
2. 年齡： 1. 16-25 2. 26-30 3. 31-40 4. 41-50 5. 50 以上 3. 教育程度： 1. 高中職 2. 專科 3. 大學 4. 研究所以上 4. 最高學歷主修： 1. 商 2. 理工 3. 其它
5. 目前是否為全職學生： 1.是 2.否
問卷到此結束，非常謝謝您
敬啟者：
您好！這是一份學術用途之研究問卷，問卷不具名，答案也沒有對或錯，請 依您的看法放心作答。
謝謝您熱心協助！
國立交通大學管理科學系 黃仁宏教授
博士班學生 張清德
◎ 問題都和旅館房價有關，假設這些旅館是美國或歐洲的旅館，而您要從台灣 連上旅館的網站訂房。
一、 某城市有五家大旅館，其中一家大旅館(A 旅館)重新整修，因而暫停營業。
另外四家旅館中，有一家(B 旅館)的房價原為每天美金$100(約合台幣
$3500)，在 A 旅館暫停營業的期間，將房價調為每天美金$120(約合台幣
$4200)，但另外三家並沒有調漲。此種價格調漲是否公平合理？
非常公平 □ □ □ □ □ 非常不公平
二、 您要預訂某家旅館的房間。假設您知道您的朋友剛剛利用傳真預訂房間，
價格為每天美金$100。如果您利用網路預訂房間，您認為公平合理的價格 應該是多少？ _________________________________
如果您認為公平合理的價格應該高於$100，為什麼？
_________________________________________________________________
如果您認為公平合理的價格應該低於$100，為什麼？
_________________________________________________________________
三、 一家渡假旅館宣稱，由於經濟不景氣，住房率很低，為了促銷，要將某個 週末的房間，在網路上拍賣。這旅館價格原為每天美金$100，拍賣的底價 訂為美金$40，投標的結果，最後成交價為美金$70。您認為這種在網路上 拍賣房間是否公平合理？
非常公平 □ □ □ □ □ 非常不公平
四、 一家渡假旅館宣稱，由於經濟不景氣，住房率很低，為了促銷，要將某個 週末的房間，利用群體購買的方式在網路上銷售。假設這家旅館週末房間 的市價為每天美金$100。最後的房價將依房間銷售狀況而定，價格表如下 所示：
銷售的房間數 價格
0-30 $110
31-60 $85
Over 61 $65
換句話說，如果銷售的房間數少於30，每間房間的價格為美金$110。然而，
如果銷售的房間數多於 30，但低於或等於 60，則每間房間的價格為美金
$85。如果銷售的房間數在 61 以上，則每間房間的價格為美金$65。訂房的 顧客可以指出價格多少，才願意購買。這種群體購買方式是否公平合理？
非常公平 □ □ □ □ □ 非常不公平
五、 一家旅館決定要採用 Priceline.com 這家公司的訂價模式，也就是顧客提出
一個願意住房的價格，然後由旅館決定是否接受此價格。如果顧客提出一 個價格，而旅館接受此價格，則顧客不能說不要了。您知道附近同等級的 旅館，每天的價格為美金$100，因此您提出美金$90 的價格，而旅館也接受 此價格。請問此種訂價方式是否公平合理？
非常公平 □ □ □ □ □ 非常不公平
六、 假設您可以在網際網路上討價還價，就像買新汽車時的討價還價一樣。賣 方提出一個售價給您，您可以接受，也可以還價。賣方對您的還價，可以 接受，也可以再提供另外一個價格。此過程可一直下去，直到一方不願再 繼續，或雙方同意一個價格為止。您可同時開數個視窗，同時和數個賣方 討價還價。此外，您的還價並沒有約束力，換句話說，如果某個賣方接受 您的還價，您仍沒有義務購買。您認為此種訂價方式是否公平合理？
非常公平 □ □ □ □ □ 非常不公平
七、 旅館利用電子郵件，寄發折價劵給一些潛在顧客，而沒寄給其它的潛在顧
七、 旅館利用電子郵件，寄發折價劵給一些潛在顧客，而沒寄給其它的潛在顧