Optimizing Price Menus for Duration Discounts: A Subscription Selectivity Field Experiment

References

• Anderson ET, Simester DI (2003) Effects of $9 price endings on retail sales: Evidence from field experiments. Quant. Marketing Econom. 1(1):93–110.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson ET, Simester DI (2004) Long-run effects of promotion depth on new versus established customers: Three field studies. Marketing Sci. 23(1):4–20.Link, Google Scholar
• Ascarza E, Lambrecht A, Vilcassim N (2012) When talk is “free”: The effect of tariff structure on usage under two-and three-part tariffs. J. Marketing Res. 49(6):882–899.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Braun M, Moe WW (2013) Online display advertising: Modeling the effects of multiple creatives and individual impression histories. Marketing Sci. 32(5):753–767.Link, Google Scholar
• Bushway S Johnson BD, Slocum LA (2007) Is the magic still there? The use of the Heckman two-step correction for selection bias in criminology. J. Quant. Criminology 23(2):151–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carpenter B, Gelman A, Hoffman MD, Lee D, Goodrich B, Betancourt M, Brubaker M, Guo J, Li P, Riddell A (2017) Stan: A probabilistic programming language. J. Statist. Software 76(1):1–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Danaher PJ (2002) Optimal pricing of new subscription services: Analysis of a market experiment. Marketing Sci. 21(2):119–138.Link, Google Scholar
• Dubin JA, Rivers D (1989) Selection bias in linear regression, logit and probit models. Sociol. Methods Res. 18(2–3):360–390.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Feinberg FM, Salisbury LC, Ying Y (2016) When random assignment is not enough: Accounting for item selectivity in experimental research. Marketing Sci. 35(6):976–994.Link, Google Scholar
• Goettler RL, Clay K (2011) Tariff choice with consumer learning and switching costs. J. Marketing Res. 48(4):633–652.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gu Z, Yang S (2010) Quantity-discount-dependent consumer preferences and competitive nonlinear pricing. J. Marketing Res. 47(6):1100–1113.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grubb MD, Osborne M (2015) Cellular service demand: Biased beliefs, learning, and bill shock. Amer. Econom. Rev. 105(1):234–271.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heckman JJ (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error (with an application to the estimation of labor supply functions). Econometrica 47(1):153–161.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iyengar R, Gupta S (2009) Nonlinear pricing. Rao V, ed. Handbook of Pricing Research in Marketing (Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, MA), 355–383.Google Scholar
• Iyengar R, Ansari A, Gupta S (2007) A model of consumer learning for service quality and usage. J. Marketing Res. 44(4):529–544.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kumar V (2014) Making “freemium” work: Many start-ups fail to recognize the challenges of this popular business model. Harvard Bus. Rev. 92(5):27–29.Google Scholar
• Lambrecht A, Seim K, Tucker C (2011) Stuck in the adoption funnel: The effect of interruptions in the adoption process on usage. Marketing Sci. 30(2):355–367.Link, Google Scholar
• Lambrecht A, Seim K, Vilcassim N, Cheema A, Chen Y, Crawford GS, Hosanagar K, et al.. (2012) Price discrimination in service industries. Marketing Lett. 23(2):423–438.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lambrecht A, Skiera B (2006) Paying too much and being happy about it: Existence, causes, and consequences of tariff-choice biases. J. Marketing Res. 43(2):212–223.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levitt SD, List JA (2009) Field experiments in economics: The past, the present, and the future. Eur. Econom. Rev. 53(1):1–18.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Little RJA, Rubin DB (2020) Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 3rd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
• Manchanda P, Packard G, Pattabhiramaiah A (2015) Social dollars: The economic impact of customer participation in a firm-sponsored online customer community. Marketing Sci. 34(3):367–387.Link, Google Scholar
• McCulloch R, Rossi PE (1994) An exact likelihood analysis of the multinomial probit model. J. Econometrics 64(1):207–240.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McManus B (2007) Nonlinear pricing in an oligopoly market: The case of specialty coffee. RAND J. Econom. 38(2):512–532.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mussa M, Rosen S (1978) Monopoly and product quality. J. Econom. Theory 18(2):301–317.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Neal RM (2011) MCMC using Hamiltonian dynamics. Brooks S, Gelman A, Jones G, Meng XL, eds. Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo (Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Niculescu MF, Wu DJ (2014) Economics of free under perpetual licensing: Implications for the software industry. Inform. Systems Res. 25(1):173–199.Link, Google Scholar
• Petrin A, Train K (2010) A control function approach to endogeneity in consumer choice models. J. Marketing Res. 47(1):3–13.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Puhani P (2000) The Heckman correction for sample selection and its critique. J. Econom. Surveys 14(1):53–68.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rao VR, ed. (2009) Handbook of Pricing Research in Marketing (Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ratchford BT (2009) Online pricing: Review and directions for research. J. Interactive Marketing 23(1):82–90.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ricciardi F, Mattei A, Mealli F (2019) Bayesian inference for sequential treatments under latent sequential ignorability. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 115(531):1498–1517.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tanner MA, Wong WH (1987) The calculation of posterior distributions by data augmentation. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 82(398):528–540.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A (1972) Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychol. Rev. 79(4):281–299.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wachtel S, Otter T (2013) Successive sample selection and its relevance for management decisions. Marketing Sci. 32(1):170–185.Link, Google Scholar
• Wilson RB (1993) Nonlinear Pricing (Oxford University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wolk A, Skiera B (2010) Tariff-specific preferences and their influence on price sensitivity. Bus. Res. 3(1):70–80.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zanutto EL, Bradlow ET (2006) Data pruning in consumer choice models. Quant. Marketing Econom. 4(3):267–287.Crossref, Google Scholar