Search results

How do pricing methods affect firm performance? From both an academic as well as a managerial perspective this question is important. The literature is silent on the relationship between pricing approach and company performance. The aim of this paper is to address this research gap.

To address this practical and theoretical deficit, the authors surveyed 1,812 professionals involved in pricing to measure the influence of pricing approach on firm performance.

The authors find a positive relationship between value‐based pricing (but not competition‐based pricing) and firm performance. Furthermore, the authors find that the three pricing orientations differently influence firm pricing capabilities, which in turn are positively related to firm performance. This paper is thus the first paper documenting a positive relationship between value‐based pricing and firm performance through a quantitative research design.

These findings have important theoretical as well as practical implications and suggest that all firms, regardless of size, industry or geography, benefit from value‐based pricing.

This paper seeks to examine the influence of pricing orientation on the price‐setting process in industrial firms.

The authors designed a qualitative inquiry based on the principles of grounded theory with 44 managers in 15 industrial firms located across ten US states. These managers included CEOs, pricing and marketing professionals, and financial professionals working in three industries (automotive, building products and chemicals).

The study's results reflect similarities and differences in the experiences of managers in industrial firms using all three pricing orientations. It reveals stark contrasts by pricing orientation with respect to how firms organize for pricing, manage the pricing process, make product pricing decisions, manage the transition to more advanced pricing orientations, and develop internal capabilities to face uncertain and ambiguous decisions. The findings also uncover contrasting price‐setting processes by pricing orientation and the balanced used of scientific versus intuitive decision‐making processes.

Pricing is often a neglected element of the industrial marketing mix. This study offers a variety of organizational practices by pricing orientation. The results highlight how best‐in‐class companies that adopted modern pricing practices to derive product prices are organized and how they reach pricing decisions.

This study studies the commonly accepted pricing orientations and links them to organizational structure and decision‐making theory. This study contributes to bridging pricing and organizational theories.

Demand-based pricing fixes price according to customers’ perceptions of service value and to their resulting willingness to pay. This pricing approach enables service companies to align their prices to customers’ preferences and to their expenditure propensity. Accordingly, it can generate higher margins than other pricing approaches. Nevertheless, this approach is difficult to implement operationally. Consequently, in order to overcome these implementation difficulties, the purpose of this paper is to provide a demand-based pricing approach based on the user-friendly technique of service blueprint (SB).

The methodology relies on the design science leads. Design science deals with creating artefacts or models for supporting human or organizational purposes; such artefacts have to be assessed against criteria of utility or value for users. Accordingly, an experimental action research is performed for both implementing and testing the proposed pricing approach.

Starting from the main difficulties hindering implementation of demand-based pricing, SB is proved to enable companies to overcome such difficulties and to support its implementation. Moreover, by employing SB, an innovative approach for fixing service prices is provided.

The proposed approach enables managers of service companies to overcome difficulties of demand-based pricing and to employ pricing strategies according to demand-based drivers.

In line with a recent call for research on service pricing, this paper develops a new pricing approach, which is able to promote demand-based pricing.

Empirical studies have found that cost-based pricing remains dominant in pricing practice and suggest that practice conflicts with marketing theory, which recommends value-based prices. However, empirical studies have yet to examine whether cost-plus formulas represent the pricing approach or essence.

This study aims to address the factors that explain price setting whereby the cost-plus formula is not just the pricing approach but also the pricing essence. This examination is grounded in a survey conducted on 380 Brazilian industrial companies.

The results show that, for price-makers, the cost-based pricing essence is positively associated with four factors (two obstacles to deploying value-based pricing, company size and differentiation), but it is negatively related to one factor (premium pricing strategy). For price-takers, the cost-based pricing essence is positively associated with four factors (two obstacles to deploying value-based pricing, coercive isomorphism and use of full costs), but it is negatively related to five factors (one obstacle to deploying value-based pricing, company size, competitors’ ability to copy, normative isomorphism and experience).

The key contribution of this paper is demonstrating that cost-plus formulas do not go against the incorporation of competitors and value information. This study reveals that it is possible to set prices based on either value or competitors’ prices while simultaneously preserving the simplicity of the cost-plus formulas. Via the margin, firms may connect costs to information about competition and value. The authors also demonstrate the drawbacks of not segregating companies into price-makers and price-takers and an excessive focus on the pricing approach at the expense of pricing essence.

While the gap between economic theory and companies’ practice, regarding to the pricing setting, has been extensively explored and explained, the new gap between the marketing normative view and companies’ practice needs further clarification. In this way, the paper aims to investigate whether marketing researchers’ claim that the use of cost-based price approach prevails over the use of value-based price approach is pertinent.

The paper is guided by the following research question: “Does price-setting based on cost plus margin go against the value-based price approach?” The answer to this question is grounded in reflections on results of previous research studies and in a case study conducted in an industrial company. Because of the qualitative focus of the present study, hypotheses are not established, but rather the following proposition: certain companies use the mechanics of cost plus margin in the sale price-setting process, but it does not necessarily mean that these companies set prices based on cost.

The arguments, propositions and the case study findings provide the logical sequence and the support required to conclude that price-setting based on cost plus margin does not always conflict with the value-based price approach. As a result, it may be claimed that the general proposition established is theoretically valid, i.e. using a price formula that contains the elements cost and margin does not necessarily mean that the company sets prices based on cost.

The key contribution of this paper is demonstrating that in certain business environments, such as, B2B, using the price formation mechanics based on cost plus margin is the way found by companies to enable the approach adopted. The approach may be cost-based or value-based price. This is the first study that explicitly reveals how B2B companies may set prices based on value while simultaneously preserving the simplicity of cost plus margin formulas. Researchers have significant misconceptions about these formulas: in previous studies, they classified all price-making companies as those adopting the cost-based price approach simply because they used formulas containing the element cost.

Customer value‐based pricing is increasingly recognised by academics and practitioners as the most effective approach to pricing for companies wishing to achieve increased profitability and sustained success. However, despite this apparent support for the implementation of value‐based pricing, the practical reality is that more than 80 percent of companies continue to price their products and services primarily on the basis of costs and/or competitive price levels. The present study investigates this phenomenon and identifies the main reasons for this gap between aspiration and reality.

A two‐stage empirical approach is employed: first, in a qualitative research, the phenomenon of implementation of value‐based strategies with groups of business executives participating in pricing workshops is explored. The result of this qualitative stage was then used to develop a questionnaire which was tested upon a significantly larger and more stratified population. Finally cluster analysis to summarize the results of this quantitative research stage was employed.

Based on a survey of 81 executives representing a wide range of B2B and B2C industries in Germany, Austria, China, and the USA, five main obstacles to the implementation of value‐based pricing strategies have been identified: deficits in value assessment; deficits in value communication; lack of effective market segmentation; deficits in sales force management; and lack of support from senior management. The paper also provides a range of remedies to overcome these obstacles.

In extant literature there exists a gap between: the widespread understanding of the superiority of customer value‐based pricing strategies; and the circumstance that customer value‐based pricing strategies are currently the least widely diffused major pricing approach. We cover thus gap by highlighting which obstacles exist to the implementation of value‐based pricing strategies and provide a series of remedies to overcome these obstacles.

The purpose of this paper is to identify a set of specific activities and a set of competencies associated with above‐average firm performance.

Quantitative survey of 748 respondents.

It was found that four key competencies differentiate high performing from low performing companies: organizational confidence; pricing capabilities; organizational change capacity; and championing behaviors by top management. The research also identifies a set of specific activities that are linked with superior firm performance: activities directed at the improvement of pricing effectiveness (e.g. trainings, pricing tools; pricing performance reviews); improvements in product differentiation and product quality (e.g. through innovation and research aimed at identifying and creating customer value); increased sense of organizational confidence (e.g. optimism, resilience, “can do”‐attitude); improved support of top management; improved ability to stick to list prices and minimization of discounting behaviors; and finally, enhanced cultural adaptability to respond to changing market conditions.

Through a quantitative research design, the authors document the link between pricing capabilities, organizational confidence and superior firm performance.

The authors identify both specific activities, as well as higher order competencies, practising managers need to develop in order to increase firm performance via pricing. Taking a hypothetical company as example, the authors' data show that, on average, a one point improvement on a seven‐point scale in organizational confidence leads to a 4 per cent improvement in return on sales.

Our research highlights which organizational competencies drive firm performance. Specifically this research is the first quantitative survey which documents a positive relationships between organizational confidence and firm performance.

This article aims to address the relationship between price strategies and price‐setting practices. The first derive from a normative tradition in the pricing literature and the latter from a descriptive tradition. Price strategies are visible in the market, whereas price‐setting practices are hidden behind the boundaries of an organization.

The study deals with the relationship between price strategies and price‐setting practices that refer to the use of customer value, competition, and cost information. Hypotheses are tested on survey data on 95 small and medium‐sized manufacturing and service firms in The Netherlands.

The results show that price strategies and price‐setting practices are related because strategies are implemented through price‐setting practices. However, some firms do not pursue any of the strategies indicated by pricing theory, some firms engage in practices for no clear strategic reasons, and some firms insufficiently engage in appropriate practices to implement their strategic choices.

The results are limited to small companies. Researchers should examine why firms may not pursue any price strategy that is offered by pricing theory. They may also focus on organizational learning and pricing capabilities.

Managers need greater awareness about the price strategies they can use, should be cautious about a potential mismatch between price strategies and price‐setting practices, and should reassess whether their firms are capable of engaging in the appropriate practices.

Linking price strategies to price‐setting practices reduces conceptual confusion in the pricing literature and may help to specify the gap between pricing theory and practice.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the pricing policies that service companies adopt along with the pricing information that they gather to set their prices. Despite previous authors' suggestions regarding the need for a coherent process when setting prices, there seems to be a lack of empirically‐based theory on how pricing policies and pricing information might be interrelated.

Following 26 in‐depth exploratory interviews, additional personal interview data were collected from 170 companies operating in six different services sectors in Greece.

The paper finds that “list pricing” is the only policy that is adopted by the majority of the surveyed companies. Further, they tend to collect more than one type of information giving particular emphasis on market‐based information. The “customer‐based” information was found to be associated positively with the policy of “cash discounts”, while the “competition‐based” information with the policies of “trade discounts” and “differentiated pricing”. Moreover, the “cost‐based information” is associated positively with the “cash discounts” and “efficiency pricing” policies and negatively with the “loss leader pricing” policy.

The findings refer to the need for a “balanced” market‐oriented and “situation‐specific” approach when setting prices The significance of these findings notwithstanding, the context of the study (Greece) is the most important caveat since it limits the ability to generalize the results in other countries.

The paper represents the first attempt to examine empirically the potential relationship between pricing policies and pricing information.

The purpose of this research paper is to explore the pricing objectives that service companies pursue along with the pricing methods that they adopt in order to set their prices.

An extensive review of the literature revealed the complete lack of any previous work aiming to investigate the potential association between these two important elements of a company's pricing strategy. Thus, the value of the paper lies in the fact that it presents the first attempt to examine this issue empirically. In order to achieve the research objectives, data were collected from 170 companies operating in six different services sectors in Greece through personal interviews.

The findings of the study reveal that the objectives, which are pursued, are fundamentally qualitative rather than quantitative in their nature with a particular emphasis given on the companies’ customers. However, the pricing methods, which are adopted by the majority of the companies, refer to the traditional cost‐plus method and the pricing according to the market's average prices. The study also revealed that the pricing objectives are, as should be expected, associated with the pricing methods.

The practical implications of the findings refer to the fact that managers might gain a lot by placing their emphasis on an integrated pricing approach and implement pricing methods that are in line with the pricing objectives that have been initially set. However, the context of the study (Greece) is an obvious limitation to the ability to generalize these findings, suggesting the need for future research that replicates the current study in other countries.

Managers might gain a lot by placing their emphasis on an integrated pricing approach and implement pricing methods that are in line with the pricing objectives that have been initially set.