Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
W. Davidow, B. Uttal (1989)
Total customer service : the ultimate weapon
A. Tversky, D. Kahneman (1981)
The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.Science, 211 4481
V. Zeithaml, L. Berry, A. Parasuraman (1993)
The nature and determinants of customer expectations of serviceJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21
Robert Palmatier, Cheryl Jarvis, Jennifer Bechkoff, Frank Kardes (2009)
The Role of Customer Gratitude in Relationship MarketingJournal of Marketing, 73
Glenn Voss, A. Parasuraman, Dhruv Grewal (1998)
The Roles of Price, Performance, and Expectations in Determining Satisfaction in Service Exchanges:Journal of Marketing, 62
Purpose – This study investigated perceptions useful for pricing decisions. Buyers observing premium prices may believe that “you get what you pay for,” but do buyers seeing low prices believe that “you do not get what you do not pay for”? This research tested the idea that these two statements often prompt different perceptions. Design/methodology/approach – Data came from a questionnaire completed by 105 working professionals in an evening MBA program at a metropolitan university. A randomly selected half received one version, asking about the statement “you get what you pay for.” The other half received an otherwise identical version asking about “you do not get what you do not pay for.” All were asked whether they believed the statement, Yes or No, and then asked to offer an example from their own experience to support that answer. Findings – As expected, different examples were offered, depending on the statement. Examples agreeing that “you get what you pay for” disproportionately involved quality. Examples of “you do not get what you do not pay for” disproportionately involved service or “extras” – whether they were examples in support of agreeing or disagreeing. Most respondents agreed with whichever statement they saw, but more agreed with “you get what you pay for.” Originality/value – Managers fearful that lowering a price will signal a drop in quality – exemplifying “you do not get what you do not pay for” – may be misreading the way buyers think. Those considering setting a higher price than they otherwise might, to signal better quality, have evidence here to support that view. So do those who, regardless of price level, offer occasional unexpected “extras.”
Journal of Business Strategy – Emerald Publishing
Published: Sep 7, 2010
Keywords: Pricing; Price positioning; Quality awareness; Service levels
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.