Reassessing retailers' usage of partially comparative pricing

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to assess the robustness of effects found by Barone et al. that partially comparative pricing enhances consumers' relative price beliefs about its comparatively priced products, but risks adversely affecting these beliefs about the retailer's non‐comparatively priced products.

Design/methodology/approach

Research uses an experimental methodology in which the presence or absence of a price comparison is manipulated and the effects on relative price beliefs about non‐comparatively priced products are assessed.

Findings

Four studies replicated Barone et al.'s findings that a competitive price comparison enhances consumers' relative price beliefs about comparatively priced products, but did not replicate their findings that these beliefs about the non‐comparatively priced products are affected adversely unless suspicion was induced experimentally. Otherwise, consumer suspicion about the lack of price comparisons, found to be a driver of the adverse effects in Barone et al., did not spontaneously emerge in the current research.

Research limitations/implications

Research examines only university students in a controlled setting devoid of real‐world distractions. Like Barone et al., effects focus on non‐comparatively priced products in categories lacking any price comparison rather than the non‐comparatively priced products residing within the same category as the comparatively priced product. Findings reinforce the value of replication.

Practical implications

The potential risks to retailers of using partially comparative pricing appear far less prevalent than observed previously.

Originality/value

The paper raises questions about the stability of consumer response, particularly those involving consumer suspicion, to pricing tactics.

Citation

Mustapha Mohammed, S. and Miniard, P.W. (2013), "Reassessing retailers' usage of partially comparative pricing", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 172-179. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610421311321077