← Every exhibit

Figure Figure 1 Go-to-market & pricing

The preference at equal money, and what a premium does to it

A collapse, not a plateau: 68% take the flat rate when it costs the same, and pricing the preference cuts it to 23 and then 15. About forty people per condition: coarse percentages, solid direction.

Share of purchasing professionals choosing the flat rate: 68% at equal cost, 23% at a 20% premium and 15% at a 50% premium: a collapse, not a plateau.20%40%60%80%100%Same price as pay-per-use68%20% premium23%50% premium15%Chose the flat rate (%)

Reference & Evidence

Source: Kienzler, Kowalkowski & Kindström (2021), Journal of Business Research 132, Study 1, p. 407. Scenario-based choices by purchasing professionals, n = 124, about forty per condition. Single shares read as direction: a presentation-order effect elsewhere in the paper moved them between 45% and 73% (fn. 9).

Each line is a claim from the register this journal publishes against, resolved from the register at build time.

  • A At equal cost, 68% of purchasing professionals chose the flat rate (Study 1, n = 124, ~40 per condition, cloud analytics). The design is scenario-based: "A series of four experiments showed that experienced purchasing professionals tend to exhibit a flat-rate bias in their price plan choices", and "they preferred the flat-rate over the pay-per-use option" in the equal condition Kienzler, Kowalkowski & Kindström (2021), Journal of Business Research 132, 403–415 · VoR held · KKK21-C1
  • A At a 20% premium 23% still chose the flat rate; at 50%, 15% (p. 407). The authors' benchmark is that absent the bias none would in the premium conditions, since "The flat-rate bias is defined as customers" "preference for flat rates rather than pay-per-use options" Kienzler, Kowalkowski & Kindström (2021), Journal of Business Research 132, 403–415 · VoR held · KKK21-C2

Grades: A, verified against the printed page of the primary source · B, primary source, text layer only · C, authoritative secondary · D, reported.