دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی قیمت گذاری واحد و پیامدهای آن برای تحقیقات بازاریابی B2B - الزویر 2018

ABSTRACT

While it is well known that price is the only marketing mix variable that generates revenue, it is also true that pricing strategies are diverse in complexity and formulations. Over 40 years ago, legislation was approved to require the use of unit pricing to facilitate consumer decision making. Among other research, Monroe and LaPlaca (1972), examined this new phenomenon; and after some controversy, the benefits of unit pricing were confirmed by the general scholarly community. Will those benefits sustain in B2B settings? As a result of the findings from this research, we propose the fusion of unit and value-based pricing as a new approach. We call it unit value-based pricing. The main difference with classical unit pricing is the perspective shift from cost to the customer perceived value. Unit value-based pricing helps the supplier to capture a fair share of the value created and makes more robust and efficient the purchasing procedures of industrial customers. After reviewing the impact of the Monroe and LaPlaca (1972) article on pricing research, we discuss the implications of unit-value based pricing, offer nine propositions for further research, and shed some light on the proposed benefits through a case study.

5. Concluding remarks

The academic journey of Peter J. LaPlaca commenced in the early 70s decade with a publication about UP, a new phenomenon in the Northeastern area of the United States and currently disseminated over the world. This work influenced more than seventy high quality publications in reputable scholarly journals such as JM and IMM. The UP policy sought to help customers to maximize their return over the investment while shopping, leading to the purchase of the cheapest alternative available, finding inconsistent results in the early studies. After several years of research there is scientific consensus, UP contributes to B2C decision making, from customer perspective, mainly (1) diminishing the time of choosing an option among a set of alternatives and (2) reducing the cost of the average purchase per category. However, this perspective leaves out an important feature of any offering: the perceived customer value. The idea as a whole is positive and consumers express gratitude, but it leads to “commoditization” and creates new challenges for marketers in order to reach differentiation. This can be analyzed as favorable to the marketing function because indirectly enhance its relevance inside the organization.

In B2B settings, UP without any modification to the approach can be extremely dangerous and even counter-productive for both customers and suppliers. The inclusion of a value-based perspective seems appealing, but it is not exempt of difficulties. On the one hand, (ir)rationality and bias in the procurement process of industrial customers already leads towards the cheapest alternative (nominal cost). On the other hand, suppliers generally lack of sophisticated approaches to customers and struggle with open quantitative comparisons. Moreover, the negotiation processes tend to be formal (e.g., electronic bidding), minimizing human contact which is necessary to increase receptivity and facilitate influence. A value-based perspective requires a relational interaction approach between the buyer and the seller and reaching influential stakeholders (e.g., influencers in the decision making unit) at early stages of the buying process (Töytäri et al., 2015). Taking into account the challenges involved from a value-based approach, we integrated UP and value-based pricing to introduce unit value-based pricing and contribute to B2B pricing theory; entailing two research streams of Peter LaPlaca: UP and contingency pricing. This new approach stresses the relevance of articulating value propositions and separating the economic contribution of each element. Then, the vendor approaches the customer with a directed message, concentrating on the benefits that relate closer to their particular interests.