Survey Software, Web Survey, Online Surveys, and Enterprise Feedback Management solutions from Vovici

Your email:
   

Welcome to the Listening Post!

Your single source for everything Voice of the Customer (VoC) and Customer Experience (CxP). And, don’t forget you can follow us on twitter @vovici, or come check us out on Facebook and join the Vovici Network on LinkedIn.

 

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

The Van Westendorp Price Sensitivity Meter

 

price tag with question mark 200pxA slightly more sophisticated form of the Willingness to Pay question (“How much would you be willing to pay for this?”) is the Van Westendorp PSM (Price Sensitivity Meter), which is a battery of four questions. After being presented a description of the product or service, respondents are shown a scale of prices, then asked:

  1. At what price on this scale would you consider the product a good value? [“Cheap”]
  2. At what price would you say the product is beginning to get expensive, but you would still consider buying it? [“Expensive”]
  3. At what price on this scale would the product be so expensive that you would never consider it? [“Too Expensive”]
  4. At what price on this scale would the product be so inexpensive that you would doubt its quality? [“Too Cheap”]

When these questions are administered on paper, up to 20% of the responses have to be discarded for failing validation. When fielding it online, make certain that the following relationships hold:

  • Expensive > Cheap
  • Too Expensive > Expensive
  • Too Cheap < Cheap

The basic Willingness to Pay question produces unnatural results in that it returns low price points which everyone is willing to pay. In the real world, price is a signal of quality, and there are in fact low prices that are too low to be acceptable: would you buy a steak dinner if it cost $5 or a new car if it cost $5,000? While I would be fine with eating a Grade E steak dinner in a car powered by a go-kart engine, most consumers are more discriminating. One of the advantages of the PSM is that it helps estimate this low end through its “Too Cheap” question.

Peter Van Westendorp’s analysis of these questions was idiosyncratic, and I won’t go into it here, as it has been debunked by Newton, Miller and Smith (1993), David Lyon (2002) and others. When analyzing the results from these questions, instead look for prices that are in the normal range (between Cheap and Expensive) for as many people as possible; if that is too narrow, look for prices in the acceptable range (between Too Cheap and Too Expensive) for as many as possible.

Van Westendorp PSM

The Van Westendorp question battery has spread by word of mouth ever since it was first presented at an ESOMAR conference in 1976. That said, it offers the illusion of rigor while suffering from many of the same problems as the basic Willingness to Pay question: respondents tend to lowball their answers, and those answers are not likely to reflect actual behavior. As with Willingness to Pay, this technique is best used as an input to further pricing research and a small sample size is sufficient. As David Lyon writes in “The Price is Right (Or Is It?)”, “PSM is used far more widely, and its results taken far more literally, than they should be.”

If you’re struggling with pricing research, I encourage you to attend David’s workshop at the Applied Research Methods conference – where you can also attend my classes on Panel & Community Management and on Pragmatic Social Media Research. 

See also:

Comments

Thanks, Jeffrey, for a balanced look at the Van Westerdorp PSM. We've used it on various occasions and find it useful but only to a degree. We have to know going in that we're going to end up at a lower range of prices than we would with other methods. The key way to mitigate this issue is to ensure that the scale of prices that you give the respondents is "high enough"... but I've often thought it would be a good to get a "reality check" from respondents on the price range itself. Thanks again.
Posted @ Friday, February 04, 2011 10:22 AM by MaryEllen DeMarco
This is the second post I have seen on PSM in the last week and they both seem a bit over hard on PSM to me (this one less so). 
 
First I think it is important to be clear about what it is good for and what it is not. In my opinion PSM is great tool to aid strategic thinking, especially about a radically new product. 
 
However it is almost useless for tactical, fine-tuning, pricing work. 
 
Where I have seen it used best is where a client has a product they think will launch into the market at $20, but most people think it would be over-priced at $12. In these cases make sure you collect enough information about why. Was it that the concept was not clearly communicated, or that potential buyers just can't envisage how great life will be with it, or that the product really is not worth $20 to people? 
 
Some of my tips I usually offer about PSM (note, I include PSM in my workshop on pricing research) are: 
1) ask people to be projective about prices (e.g. at what price do you think people will say it is expensive but still worth considering) 
2) think long and hard about the best wording for the cheap, good value, inexpensive question, it is very dependent on culture and context 
3) generally, avoid have pre-assigned price ranges, they create expectations and frameworks. 
4) almost never present the croweded classic PSM curve, with its cumulative frequency expensive, too expensive, cheap, too cheap lines, present the findings, the chart is one of the inputs for the analyst, not part of the debrief. 
 
Both the articles this week highlighted issues with lowballing. I am not sure if this is a bigger problem in the US or whether it relates to the way that the questions were asked, but I have not typically found it to be a major problem (some people lowball, some people over-state, in the studies I have done). I suspect the projective structure makes it easier for people to generate realistic expectations. 
 
And always remember there are no really good pricing research techniques, there are only ones that can add a little light in specific circumstances, which is why we use so many different pricing techniques.
Posted @ Friday, February 04, 2011 10:40 AM by Ray Poynter
Glad to see some discussion on this topic. After taking Dave Lyon's pricing workshop at the Sawtooth Conference last year, I began to correspond with him on this method of normal and acceptable ranges as an alternative to the traditional "crossing curves" method. Currently, we're looking at about 10 datasets of VW data to see how the normal/acceptable method compares to the crossing curves method. Hope to share the results with everyone soon.
Posted @ Friday, February 04, 2011 12:55 PM by @NicoPeruzziPhD
Como faço para fazer os graficos no excel. tem 02 formulas: 
 
 
 
1) 
 
G1% = grau de importancia de um atributo do produto ou serviço / total dos graus de importancia do produto ou serviços. 
 
 
 
 
 
2) CR% = custo do rercurso / custo total * 100 
 
 
 
 
 
Não estou conseguindo fazer os graficos. 
 
 
 
agradeeço se me ajudar. 
 
 
 
 
 
Grato, 
 
Posted @ Monday, October 31, 2011 12:33 PM by Edmar
Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics

Latest Posts

Loading
What's New
Don't Be in the 4%
VoC on Twitter
Verint Blog
Verint Blog: Read the Latest from the Verint Systems Blog