Skip to main content

Pricing Revisited - Balancing Gains and Losses by Bill Johnson * [105]


People generally fear losses more than they covet gains; losses are weighted more heavily than an equivalent amount of gains, e.g., the absolute joy felt in finding $50 is a lot less than the absolute pain caused by losing $50, a phenomenon known as “loss-aversion”.  Kahneman and Tversky stumbled upon loss aversion after giving their students a simple survey, which asked whether or not they would accept a variety of different bets. The psychologists noticed that, when people were offered a gamble on the toss of a coin in which they might lose $20, they demanded an average payoff of at least $40 if they won. The pain of a loss was approximately twice as potent as the pleasure generated by a gain. As Kahneman and Tversky aptly put it, “In human decision making, losses loom larger than gains.”
If you ever kept a gym membership long after it has become clear that you are not now and will never be a gym rat, then you have felt the effects (i.e. “dead-loss” effect) of loss aversion. Think about how insurance is sold, not on what consumers will gain, but what they stand to lose—insurance (and warranties) is by definition designed to mitigate “loss”.
Consider the following example of how loss aversion works.  A grocery retailer has tried to decrease people’s use of plastic grocery bags. One approach was to offer a five-cent bonus to customers who brought reusable bags. That approach had essentially no effect. Later the retailer tried another approach, which was to impose a five-cent tax on those who ask for a grocery bag. Though five cents is not a lot of money, many people do not want to pay it. The new approach has had a major effect in reducing use of grocery bags.
Here is another example of where loss aversion comes into play.  Suppose two companies sell calling plans. Company A advertises their plan for $25.00 per month, with a $12 rebate for continuing the contract for at least one year.   Company B advertises their plan for $24 per month, with a $12 surcharge for dropping out of the program before a year is up. Which is the better deal after one year’s worth of calls?  Of course, the economic costs of these two plans are identical, except that the plan offered by Company B is framed differently, i.e. as a potential loss, and would more strongly appeal to loss-averse customers.
Loss aversion has many practical applications in marketing, in particular when it comes to pricing, i.e. when using price increases, reference prices, limited time offers and price bundling.
Price increases – Whenever a customer sees a price increase, they interpret this as a personal loss.  Hence, businesses often see extremely emotional reactions resulting in lost business (e.g. Netfix lost 800,000 subscribers in the 3rd quarter of 2011 after an announced price hike).  One strategy, if possible, is to change the packaging of the product, e.g., Kellogg’s reduced the size of its Frosted Flakes and Rice Krispies cereal boxes from 19 to 18 ounces. Frito-Lay reduced Doritos bags from 12 to 10 ounces. Dial Soap bars shrank from 4.5 to 4 ounces, and Procter and Gamble reduced the size of Bounty paper towel rolls from 60 to 52 sheets.
Reference prices – A reference price is what your customers expect to pay.  If they are forced to pay more than this they consider it a loss.  Less is a gain.  Existing customers often use the last price paid as their reference price (and smart phones now offer instant reference pricing data).  However, for new customers, firms have the ability to influence their reference price.  We often see retailers show MSRP and then a marked down price--this to influence the reference price.  Alternatively, some companies choose to compare their product to one that is much more expensive in hope of increasing the prospect’s reference price (a tactic frequently used by off-price retailers like Ross or T.J. Maxx).
Limited time offers – If Macy’s is willing to sell a jacket at 50% during a sale that ends Sunday, why wouldn’t they sell it at 50% off on Monday?  The answer is loss aversion.  If potential buyers are on the fence about buying the jacket, they are more likely to go purchase it while it’s on sale.  Once Monday comes they have lost the opportunity.  If Macy’s doesn’t stop the sale on Monday they don’t have the extra incentive to go buy on Sunday (Walgreens features “Senior Tuesday” sales).  Loss aversion is one factor that drives the success of “sales”.
Bundling – charging a single net price for the overall exchange hides gains and losses on the component transactions and allows consumers flexibility in mentally apportioning the net price across the components in a manner they construe favorably.
People and customers in particularly don’t like to lose. This is why good marketing and sales is often all about convincing prospects that what they are about to buy is worth more than what they must pay for it.  Something is seen as a good value when any perceived pain of loss will be more than offset by the joy of gain. 
So, what about you, are you more likely to avoid losses or pursue gains?
* William (Bill) Johnson, Ph.D., is a Professor of  Marketing (Retired) at Nova Southeastern University. He can be reached at billyboy@nova.edu 

Comments

  1. I found this article to be extremely interesting. I've never taken into consideration the fact that people hate to loss way more than they enjoy to win. In marketing, this is very important to consider as the article explains already because from this perspective one can build the marketing strategy to sell their products or services by simply adding that necessary value for the customer to perceive the sense that they are not losing when doing a purchase.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Creating Better Customer Experiences [5]

[There are no traffic jams along the extra mile.Roger Staubach]
The dominance of the service sector, global competition, rising labor and technology costs and demanding customers forces companies to create excellent customer experiences or fail. In the Now Economy, Companies must know their customer’s definition of service quality (SQ). Organizations have to provide service experiences that meet or exceed customer expectations at a reasonable price.
It’s all about the service experience!Research has found that about 70% of customer defections are due to service problems. Customers evaluate service encounters to assess the quality of a firm’s offeringsand whether they will continue do business with them in the future.
Improving service quality is like taking vitamins, eating healthy and exercising regularly. Although the results may not be immediate, long-term benefits are significant. Managing service quality is not a “quick fix,” but rather a way of life for companies who are seriou…

A Customer Value Mindset in Asia’s Airlines Business by Michael Santonino * [103]

Photos by Michael D. Santonino III/Kim Pei Lu travel photography
Asian airports are transforming the airlines industry by creating value for customers in convenience, availability, and access with a multitude of services. The top airports in the world offer customers a travel experience with a “Disney-like” park feeling as airports display picturesque rainforest waterfalls, lush landscape, open glass designs, cultural artwork, sustainable operations, luxurious amenities, connectivity, and selection of dining and shopping preferences for passengers. Airports (and airlines) are creating value in the Now Economy with Speed, Service, Solutions, Selection, and Sociability (the 5-S model) in many Asian countries (i.e. Singapore, South Korea, Japan, and Hong Kong). 
The United States with its aging airport infrastructure has not been a passenger’s preferred choice in comparison to these Asian countries airports, as many of the service quality performance measures used by …

Customer Ownership - Understanding the True Value of a Relationship by Ricky Fergurson * [106]

In the rapidly changing landscape of B2B sales, factors such as technology, competitive intensity, and rising sales support costs oblige greater attention to customer relationships. Many companies that have an enterprise focus struggle with the concept of “owning the customer” (Weeks 2016). Given that customers are buying in different ways, firms are driven to engage customers differently. According to Cooper (2016), “customer ownership is all about creating, delivering and communicating compelling value”. In nurturing and developing customers through the B2B life cycle, multiple departments and functional units in the firm are entwined in customer relationship management (CRM). The complexity of CRM and dynamism in customers’ relationship expectations require that sales, marketing, service, and support work together through the customer buying and fulfillment process. The diffusion of tasks and responsibilities exposes a fundamental CRM gap: who truly owns the customer? A recent Amer…