Skip to main content

Two different ways to charge for a good

The conventional way to charge consumers for something is pretty simple - they pay for every unit they buy. But, there are alternatives. One is to charge an up-front fee and then refund customers for every unit they purchase below some threshold. Google's new Project Fi has an element of this built into it, as they explain - 'Let's say you go with 3GB for $30 and only use 1.4GB one month. You'll get $16 back, so you only pay for what you use'.
          It is simple to design a pay and refund pricing policy that are theoretically equivalent. For instance, suppose you regularly buy movies from an online website. Also, suppose that you would never buy more than 20 movies a month. Then the following pricing policies are equivalent:
  • Pay: You pay £5 for every movie you download.
  • Refund: You pay a monthly fee of £100 and receive £5 back, per movie, if you download less than 20 movies. 
For example, if you buy 10 movies in a month then this either costs £10 x 5 = £50 or £100 - 10 x 5 = £50.
          To say, though,  that a pay policy and refund policy are equivalent in theory does not mean they are equivalent in practice. So, which type of policy would you prefer? And which type of policy do you think would lead to most downloads?
           One way of looking at this is to say that paying money for something is coded as a loss. So, under the pay policy there would be 10 times during the month where you 'lose' £5. The abundant evidence for loss aversion tells us that losses are bad. So, 10 losses are very bad. Under the refund policy there is one big loss of £100 and then a gain of £50. Now, a big loss is clearly worse than a small loss. Evidence suggests, however, that we don't consider a big loss as bad as lots of small losses. This, in itself, does not tell us that a £100 big loss is better than 10 losses of £5. But, it does suggest that people might prefer the refund policy once we factor in the additional £50 gain. So, expect people to opt for the refund policy.
           Consider now the number of downloads. With a pay policy each download is a loss of £5. With a refund policy each download reduces the gain at the end of the month by £5. Loss aversion clearly implies that people will download less with a pay policy than a refund policy. Interestingly, this poses something of a conundrum for the company deciding on a pricing policy - the refund policy may be more popular but lead to more usage.  
           If you are not convinced by the above arguments lets churn out some numbers consistent with prospect theory. Suppose that if you lose £x you suffer a psychological cost of 2log(x). Then losing £5 costs 3.22 while losing £100 costs 9.21. This is already enough to tell us that 10 losses of £5 is worse than a one-off loss of £100 (because the 10 losses costs 32.3 compared to only 9.21). Hence, you would prefer the refund policy. Suppose that if you gain £x you experience pleasure of log(x). Then gaining £5 adds at most 1.61 to pleasure which is nothing compared to the cost of paying £5. Hence, you will download more movies under a refund policy.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Honesty around the world

In my last post I looked at dishonesty in the banking industry. Sticking with a similar theme, this time I will at dishonesty across different countries.        Let us start with a study by David Pascual-Ezama and a long list of co-authors on 'Context dependent cheating: Experimental evidence from 16 countries'. They asked 90 students in 16 different countries to perform a very simple task: toss a black and white coin and record the outcome. If the coin came up white the student obtained a red Lindt Lindor Truffle. If it came up black they got nothing. Crucially, the coin toss took place in private and so the student could report whatever outcome they wanted. If they wanted a chocolate then they simply had to report white. (The study contrasted three different methods of reporting - form put in a box, form given to the experimenter or verbally telling the experimenter - but I will skip those details here.)           The chart below summa...
Post a Comment
Read more

Prisoners dilemma or stag hunt

Over Christmas I had chance to read The Stag Hunt and the Evolution of Social Structure by Brian Skyrms. A nice read, very interesting and thought provoking. There’s a couple of things in the book that prompt further discussion. The one I want to focus on in this post is the distinction between the stag hunt game and the prisoners dilemma game.    To be sure what we are talking about, here is a specific version of both type of game. Adam and Eve independently need to decide whether to cooperate or defect. The payoff matrix details their payoff for any combination of choices, where the first number is the payoff of Adam and the second number the payoff of Eve. For example, in the Prisoners Dilemma, if Adam cooperates and Eve defects then Adam gets 65 and Eve gets 165. Prisoners Dilemma Eve Cooperate Defect Adam Cooperate 140, 140 65, 165 Defect 165,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Measuring risk aversion the Holt and Laury way

Attitudes to risk are a key ingredient in most economic decision making. It is vital, therefore, that we have some understanding of the distribution of risk preferences in the population. And ideally we need a simple way of eliciting risk preferences that can be used in the lab or field. Charles Holt and Susan Laury set out one way of doing in this in their 2002 paper ' Risk aversion and incentive effects '. While plenty of other ways of measuring risk aversion have been devised over the years I think it is safe to say that the Holt and Laury approach is the most commonly used (as the near 4000 citations to their paper testifies).           The basic approach taken by Holt and Laury is to offer an individual 10 choices like those in the table below. For each of the 10 choices the individual has to go for option A or option B. Most people go for option A in choice 1. And everyone should go for option B in choice 10. At some point, therefore, we expect the...
Post a Comment
Read more