THE INFLUENCE OF DECOY PRICING ON CONSUMER DECISION-MAKING: A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS
Keywords:
Decoy Pricing, Consumer Behavior, Behavioral Economics, Pricing Strategy, Value PerceptionAbstract
This article provides a comprehensive analysis of decoy pricing strategies, examining their theoretical foundations, practical applications, and ethical implications in modern marketing. Drawing from behavioral economics and consumer psychology, the article explores how strategically designed pricing options can influence consumer decision-making and perceived value. The article delves into the mechanics of decoy pricing, illustrating its implementation across various industries such as software services, food and beverage, and e-commerce platforms. The article discusses key considerations for effective implementation, including target audience identification, optimal price point determination, and potential risks. It also addresses the effectiveness and limitations of decoy pricing, highlighting its impact on sales, customer perceptions, and ethical concerns. The article further explores optimization strategies, emphasizing the importance of A/B testing, customer feedback analysis, and adaptability to market changes. Finally, the article outlines future research directions, including long-term effects on brand perception, cross-cultural variations in effectiveness, and integration with other pricing strategies. This comprehensive article examination provides valuable insights for both academic researchers and business practitioners seeking to understand and implement decoy pricing strategies in an evolving marketplace.
References
Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). “Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis”. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90-98. [Online] Available: https://doi.org/10.1086/208899
Mao, W., & Oppewal, H. (2012). “The attraction effect is more pronounced for consumers who rely on intuitive reasoning”. Marketing Letters, 23, 339-351. [Online] Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-011-9157-y
Ariely, D., & Wallsten, T. S. (1995). “Seeking Subjective Dominance in Multidimensional Space: An Explanation of the Asymmetric Dominance Effect. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes”, 63(3), 223-232. [Online] Available: https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1075
Heath, T. B., & Chatterjee, S. (1995). “Asymmetric Decoy Effects on Lower-Quality versus Higher-Quality Brands: Meta-analytic and Experimental Evidence”. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(3), 268-284. [Online] Available: https://doi.org/10.1086/209449
Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). “Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion”. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 281-295. [Online] Available: https://doi.org/10.2307/3172740
Lichters, M., Bengart, P., Sarstedt, M., & Vogt, B. (2016). “What really matters in attraction effect research: When choices have economic consequences”. Marketing Letters, 28, 127-138. [Online] Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-015-9394-6
Tse, Po. (2022). “Is Digital Nudging an Ethical Marketing Strategy?: A Case Study from the Consumers' Perspectives.” 10.4018/978-1-6684-5892-1.ch004. [Online] Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-5892-1.ch004
Bertini, M., Halbheer, D., & Koenigsberg, O. (2020). “Price and quality decisions by self-serving managers”. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 37(2), 236-257. [Online] Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167811619300485
Se-Hak Chun and Jae-Cheol Kim. 2005. “Pricing strategies in B2C electronic commerce: analytical and empirical approaches”. Decis. Support Syst. 40, 2 (August 2005), 375–388. [Online] Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2004.04.012
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Karthik Ramakrishnan (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
