Limit conjoint analysis and Vickrey auction as methods to elicit consumers' willingness‐to‐pay: An empirical comparison

Abstract

Purpose

Limit conjoint analysis (LCA) and Vickrey auctions (VA) are methods for measuring willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) currently under discussion. However, there are hardly any studies comparing the approaches in terms of their applicability and validity. This paper aims to analyze the differences in WTP elicited by the two methods and their validity in high and low involvement situations.

Design/methodology/approach

Data were obtained from 179 online interviews conducted in Germany. Differences in the WTPs elicited were analyzed with a Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test. For the validation part, a χ² test of independence was used.

Findings

The results indicate differences depending on the method applied and the involvement situation. Additionally, the study indicates that for low involvement products VA performs better while for high involvement situations the results are not as clear. In terms of validity, both methods do not show satisfactory results.

Research limitations/implications

In order to generalize the findings further WTP comparisons should be done with other survey objects, samples and measurement approaches. The contribution of this paper is to show that there are significant differences in WTP measurement depending on the method used and the involvement of consumers.

Practical implications

Marketing researchers and practitioners are advised to pay special attention to the choice of method when measuring the WTP for a specific product. VA should be preferred in low involvement situations. LCA should not be used in situations where consumers are not interested in the product.

Originality/value

The study presented is the first paper to tackle the issue of influencing factors of WTP measurement systematically.

Citation

Sichtmann, C. and Stingel, S. (2007), "Limit conjoint analysis and Vickrey auction as methods to elicit consumers' willingness‐to‐pay: An empirical comparison", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 No. 11/12, pp. 1359-1374. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560710821215