Dataset Information

The boomerang effect of zero pricing: when and why a zero price is less effective than a low price for enhancing consumer demand.

ABSTRACT: Prior literature has demonstrated the power of zero pricing to boost consumer demand, but the current research shows a novel "boomerang effect": a zero (vs. low, nonzero) price can lower demand when the offer comes with high incidental costs (e.g., the time cost in commuting to an offline class; the physical risk of getting a new vaccine). Five studies show that zero pricing, relative to low pricing, has a boosting (boomerang) effect on demand when incidental costs are low (high). The diverging effects of zero pricing on demand are explained by a dual-process model with a positive affective pathway and negative scrutiny pathway. Zero pricing triggers both positive affect and cognitive scrutiny of incidental costs; when incidental costs are high, the scrutiny pathway overrides the affective pathway and decreases demand. The finding has managerial implications as incidental costs often vary widely between marketing channels and over a product's life cycle.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11747-022-00842-1.

SUBMITTER: Fan X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8852885 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The boomerang effect of zero pricing: when and why a zero price is less effective than a low price for enhancing consumer demand.

Fan Xiaomeng X Cai Fengyan Cindy FC Bodenhausen Galen V GV

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 20220214 3

Prior literature has demonstrated the power of zero pricing to boost consumer demand, but the current research shows a novel "boomerang effect": a zero (vs. low, nonzero) price can lower demand when the offer comes with high incidental costs (e.g., the time cost in commuting to an offline class; the physical risk of getting a new vaccine). Five studies show that zero pricing, relative to low pricing, has a boosting (boomerang) effect on demand when incidental costs are low (high). The diverging ...[more]

PMID: 35194264

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhile China has implemented reimbursement-linked drug price negotiation annually since 2017, emphasizing value-based pricing to achieve a value-based strategic purchase of medical insurance, whether drug prices became better aligned with clinical value after price negotiation has not been sufficiently established. This study aimed to assess the changes in prices and their relationship with the clinical value of anticancer drugs after the implementation of price negotiations in China.Methods and findingsIn this observational study, anticancer drug indications that were negotiated successfully between 2017 and 2022 were identified through National Reimbursement Drug Lists (NRDL) of China. We excluded extensions of indications for drugs already listed in the NRDL, indications for pediatric use, and indications lacking corresponding clinical trials. We identified pivotal clinical trials for included indications by consulting review reports or drug labels issued by the Center for Drug Evaluation, National Medical Products Administration. We calculated treatment costs as outcome measures based on publicly available prices and collected data on clinical value including safety, survival, quality of life, and overall response rate (ORR) from publications of pivotal clinical trials. The associations between drug costs and clinical value, both before and after negotiation, were analyzed using regression analyses. We also examined whether price negotiation has led to a reduction in the variation of treatment costs for a given value. We included 103 anticancer drug indications, primarily for the treatment of blood cancer, lung cancer, and breast cancer, with 76 supported by randomized controlled trials and 27 supported by single-arm clinical trials. The median treatment costs over the entire sample have been reduced from US$34,460.72 (interquartile range (IQR): 19,990.49 to 55,441.66) to US$13,688.79 (IQR: 7,746.97 to 21,750.97) after price negotiation (P < 0.001). Before price negotiation, each additional month of survival gained was associated with an increase in treatment costs of 3.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) [2.1, 4.8], P < 0.001) for indications supported by randomized controlled trials, and a 10% increase in ORR was associated with a 6.0% (95% CI [1.6, 10.3], P = 0.009) increase in treatment costs for indications supported by single-arm clinical trials. After price negotiation, the associations between costs and clinical value may not have changed significantly, but the variation of drug costs for a given value was reduced. Study limitations include the lack of transparency in official data, missing data on clinical value, and a limited sample size.ConclusionsIn this study, we found that the implementation of price negotiation in China has led to drug pricing better aligned with clinical value for anticancer drugs even after substantial price reductions. The achievements made in China could shed light on the price regulation in other countries, particularly those with limited resources and increasing drug expenditures.

Dataset Information

The boomerang effect of zero pricing: when and why a zero price is less effective than a low price for enhancing consumer demand.

Supplementary information

Publications

The boomerang effect of zero pricing: when and why a zero price is less effective than a low price for enhancing consumer demand.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets