Societal and Public Policy Issues With Retail Pricing
Citation:
Dhruv Grewal and Ronald C. Goodstein (1993) ,"Societal and Public Policy Issues With Retail Pricing", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 20, eds. Leigh McAlister and Michael L. Rothschild, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 477.
Many other important areas of pricing have received attention in the consumer literature, such as reservation price effects, discounting, couponing, and reference prices. Notwithstanding the importance of these topics, issues involving premiums, promotions, and pricing systems cover a wide spectrum of issues that constitute a retailer's pricing policies. However, societal and public policy issues relating to these issues have been an under-researched area. From a societal and public policy perspective, many of the heuristics (rules-of-thumb) that consumers use to simplify the marketplace are relevant and important to understand. The fact that pricing policies (e.g., premiums, promotions, and systems) are often used as cues of quality, therefore, becomes an issue worthy of further scrutiny by researchers. When these rules are accurate, and are respected by both retailers and consumers then the marketplace becomes more efficient. However, if these rules are violated either because consumers cannot understand the relationships or because retailers take advantage of consumers' reliance upon them, then societal and public policy concerns arise. The first presentation in this session examines pricing accuracy in stores employing UPC scanner systems (Goodstein, Escalas, and Kassarjian). Consumerists believed that since item prices would be eliminated as scanners were adopted pricing accuracy could not be assessed by shoppers. This study indicates that pricing accuracy has not been improved by the adoption of scanner systems. The second presentation examines consumers' use of price-quality heuristics as a defensive buying strategy (Rao, Monroe, and Bergen). This paper suggests that consumers may pay premium prices to avoid losses of product quality. The research also suggests that consumers may be able to successfully search for quality information and monitor the product quality provided by the retailer or seller. The third presentation examines consumers' interpretation of the semantic cues retailers provide to signal a promotion (Grewal and Compeau). The paper suggests that semantic cues used to communicate price information have the potential to be either informative or deceptive. The session coordinators would like to recognize and thank Michael Mazis for his service as the discussant for this session. Public policy, such as regulation, directly relates to each of these three presentations. In the case of scanning errors, regulation assuring more accurate pricing would benefit consumers shopping in scanner stores. In terms of price "gouging," regulation of prices could harm the consumer in situations where product quality is not easily assessed. Premiums, in this case, are an economic incentive used to assure price/quality tradeoffs. Finally, regulation might be used to encourage retailers to define different semantic cues so that meaning is made clear to consumers. In this way consumers could better evaluate the true value of a "promotional" price. ----------------------------------------
Authors
Dhruv Grewal, University of Miami
Ronald C. Goodstein, UCLA
Volume
NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 20 | 1993
Share Proceeding
Featured papers
See MoreFeatured
Data... the 'Hard' & 'Soft' of it: Impact of Embodied Metaphors on Attitude Strength
Sunaina Shrivastava, University of Iowa, USA
Gaurav Jain, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
JaeHwan Kwon, Baylor University
Dhananjay Nayakankuppam, University of Iowa, USA
Featured
The Impact of Price and Size Comparisons on Consumer Perception and Choice
Jun Yao, Macquarie University, Australia
Harmen Oppewal, Monash University, Australia
Yongfu He, Monash University, Australia
Featured
Dancing with Commercialism: Emphasizing Dramatism to Persuade
Yuxin Bai, Lancaster University, UK
Xin Zhao, Lancaster University, UK
Hayley Cocker, Lancaster University, UK