000			02059pab a2200205 454500
008			140923b0 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_cWelingkar Institute of Management Development & Research, Mumbai _aWelingkar Institute of Management Development & Research, Mumbai
041			_aENG
082			_a _bLam
100			_aLambrecht Anja
245			_aPaying Too Much and Being Happy About it : Existence, Causes, and Consequences of Tariff-Choice Biases. (With Abstract)
250			_a2
260			_a _bMay 2006 _c0
300			_a212-223 Pp.
490			_vXLIII
520			_aA common assumption underlying the analysis of consumers' choices among optional tariffs is that consumers choose the tariff that maximizes their surplus and, thus, the tariff that leads to the lowest billing rate for a given amount of usage.Yet there is evidence that many users prefer a flat rate even though their billing rate would be lower with a pay-per-use tariff (flat-rate bias), and some users prefer a pay-per-use tariff even though they would save money with a flat rate (pay-per-use bias). The authors conduct four empirical analyses based on three different data sets. They show that the flat-rate bias is more important and has a greater regularity and time persistence than the pay-per-use bias. They classify potential causes of the flat-rate bias as "insurance effect," "taxi meter effect," "convenience effect," and "overestimation effect" and show that the insurance, the taxi meter, and the overestimation effects lead to a flat-rate bias. They provide evidence that underestimation of usage is a major cause of the pay-per-use bias. They show that the flat-rate bias does not significantly increase customer churn and thus results in a short- and long-term profit increase. In contrast, the pay-per-use bias largely increases churn so that in the long run, the additional short-term profit is offset by higher churn.
650			_aCustomer Ussage, Pricing Scheme,
856			_uhttp://192.168.6.13/libsuite/mm_files/Articles/AR8273.pdf
906			_a24375
999			_c28196 _d28196