依據消費者偏好的市場區隔下之訂價策略

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：30

、訪客IP：18.191.235.210

姓名

柯宏融(Hung-jung Ko) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

工業管理研究所

論文名稱

依據消費者偏好的市場區隔下之訂價策略
(Pricing Strategy to Market Segmentation based on consumer's preference)

相關論文

★ 二階段作業研究模式於立體化設施規劃應用之探討–以半導體製造廠X及Y公司為例	★ 推行TPM活動以改善設備總合效率並提昇企業競爭力...以U公司桃園工廠為例
★ 資訊系統整合業者行銷通路策略之研究	★ 以決策樹法歸納關鍵製程暨以群集法識別關鍵路徑
★ 關鍵績效指標(KPI)之建立與推行 - 在造紙業	★ 應用實驗計劃法- 提昇IC載板錫球斷面品質最佳化之研究
★ 如何從歷史鑽孔Cp值導出新設計規則進而達到兼顧品質與降低生產成本目標	★ 產品資料管理系統建立及導入-以半導體IC封裝廠C公司為例
★ 企業由設計代工轉型為自有品牌之營運管理	★ 運用六標準差步驟與FMEA於塑膠射出成型之冷料改善研究(以S公司為例)
★ 台灣地區輪胎產業經營績效之研究	★ 以方法時間衡量法訂定OLED面板蒸鍍有機材料更換作業之時間標準
★ 利用六標準差管理提升生產效率－以Ａ公司塗料充填流程改善為例	★ 依流程相似度對目標群組做群集分析- 以航空發動機維修廠之自修工件為例
★ 設計鏈績效衡量指標建立 —以電動巴士產業A公司為例	★ 應用資料探勘尋找影響太陽能模組製程良率之因子研究

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

現在社會上常會看到許多無限制消費次數的服務，例如吃到飽餐廳，行動上網吃到飽或者是某種會員服務的使用次數（例如：健身房）等。在這些服務的使用消費者中，有很多消費者會寧願選擇高價的契約，例如：智慧型手機上網的客戶有大多數都會選擇上網吃到飽（無限使用量），而非那種低價方案（有限使用量），這種現象往往令人感到不解，為什麼消費者會選擇一些看似對他們不利的方案來使用，而並非選擇較低價的方案來使用。
　　根據文獻所指出，有許多消費者在做選擇時，會把他們心裡的因素也加進考量，因此無法光是依據價格便判斷出此契約是否對他有利，但是在文獻中提到，雖然目前有很多人證明初真的有心理因素會影響消費者所做的決定，但是卻沒有實際的計算出到底此類因素是如何影響消費者的決定，因此本篇文章就根據文獻中所提出之影響消費者決策之因素，提出模型來衡量消費者的決策。
　　根據此模型，我們可以發現消費者在做決策時，不僅僅只有考慮價格為唯一的因素，會在將內心的因素加入進行考量，倘若供應商能夠即時抓住這些因素，並且把此種因素納入訂價策略的考量，將可從中獲取更大利潤。根據我們所做出的結果可以推論，有更多的心理因素可以加入進行研究。

摘要(英)

We can see some unlimited allowance services in our society such as all you can eat restaurant, surfing on internet by smart phone and some limit time service of members (ex: health club). Some of the consumers who use these services would choose the higher price contract rather than the contract which is lower price. For example, the consumer surf on internet by smart phone would choose the contract with unlimited allowance but not the limited allowance. The phenomenon is strange that why consumers choose the contract seems to be disadvantage to them.
According to the literature review, consumers make decision by the price and also the other factors in their mind. So we cannot judge that the contract is good or bad for the consumer by price of the contract. However, there are some people prove that there are some minded factors affect the consumer’s decision in the literatures. In fact, there is not any paper to calculate how these factors affect the consumer by volume. In our study, we calculate the utility by these factors which were mentioned in the literatures to measure the consumer’s decision.

關鍵字(中)

★ 效用
★ 消費者剩餘
★ 價格選擇偏誤
★ 差別訂價

關鍵字(英)

★ price discrimination
★ tariff choice bias
★ surplus
★ utility

論文目次

Content i
Contents of Figures iii
Contents of Tables iii
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Motivation 1
1.2 Objective 2
2. Literature Review 3
2.1 Utility and surplus 3
2.2 Tariff choice bias 4
2.2.1 Choice bias existence 4
2.2.2 Causes of biases 5
2.3 Price discrimination 6
2.3.1 First degree discrimination 6
2.3.2 Second degree discrimination 6
2.4 Third degree discrimination 7
3. Model and Analysis 8
3.1 Statement of environment 8
3.1.1 Supplier’s environment 8
3.1.2 Consumer’s decision 8
3.2 The Notations and model. 9
3.3 Numerical Example 12
3.3.1 Case 1: risk averse (with d = 8 and k = 45) 12
3.3.2 Case 2: risk averse (with d = 8 and k = 32.5) 13
4. Numerical analysis 16
4.1 Insurance attitude and risk preference 16
4.1.1 The consumer characteristic is risk averse and k = 25. 16
4.1.2 The consumer characteristic is risk prone at k = 25. 18
4.1.3 The consumer characteristic is risk averse at k = 35. 19
4.1.4 The consumer characteristic is risk prone at k = 35. 20
4.1.5 The consumer characteristic is risk averse at k = 45. 21
4.1.6 The consumer characteristic is risk prone at k = 45. 22
4.1.7 Profit of insurance attitude and risk preference. 23
4.2 Average usage and risk preference 25
4.2.1 The consumer characteristic is risk averse at d = 6. 25
4.2.2 The consumer characteristic is risk prone at d = 6. 26
4.2.3 The consumer characteristic is risk averse at d = 10. 27
4.2.4 The consumer characteristic is risk prone at d = 10. 28
4.2.5 Profit of average usage and risk preference. 29
4.3 Insurance attitude and average usage 31
4.3.1 Consumer’s average usage and insurance attitude k = 45. 31
4.3.2 Consumer’s average usage and insurance attitude k = 32.5. 32
4.3.3 Profit of insurance attitude and average usage. 33
4.4 Insurance attitude, average usage and risk preference 36
5. Conclusion and further research 38
5.1 Conclusion 38
5.2 Future research 40
Reference 41

參考文獻

1. Anja Lambrecht and Bernd Skiera (2006), “Paying too much and being happy about it: Existence, causes and consequences of tariff-choice biases”. Journal of Marketing Research, 212–223.
2. Daniel Bernoulli (1954), “Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk,” Econometrica, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Jan., 1954), pp. 23-36.
3. Erik Brynjolfsson, Michael D. Smith, Yu (Jeffrey) Hu (2003), “Consumer Surplus in the Digital Economy: Estimating the Value of Increased Product Variety at Online Booksellers,” MIT Sloan School of Management, April 2003.
4. Jerry A. Hausman (1981), “Exact Consumer’’s Surplus and Deadweight Loss,” The American Economic Review, Vol. 71, No. 4 (Sep., 1981), pp. 662-676.
5. Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky (1979), “Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.”. Econometrica, 263-291.
6. Kridel, Donald J., Dale E. Lehman, and Dennis L. Weisman (1993), “Option Value, Telecommunication Demand, and Policy,” Information Economics and Policy, 5 (2), 125–44.
7. Lars A. Stole (2007), “Price Discrimination and Competition,” Handbook of Industrial Organization.
8. McManus, B. (2001), “Nonlinear Pricing in an Oligopoly Market: The Case of Specialty Coffee,” Washington University-St Louis, Olin School of Business, mimeo
9. Miravete, Eugenio J. (2002), “Choosing the Wrong Calling Plan? Ignorance and Learning,” American Economic Review, 93 (1), 297–310.
10. Mohammed Abdellaoui, Han Bleichrodt, and Corina Paraschiv (2007), “Measuring loss aversion under prospect theory: A parameter-free approach.” Management Science, 1659–1674.
11. Mitchell, B.M. and I. Vogelsang (1991), “Telecommunication Pricing: Theory and practice.” UK: Cambridge University Press.
12. Nunes, J. (2000), “A Cognitive Model of People’s Usage Estimations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 397-409.
13. Pigou, A. C. (1920), “The Economics of Welfare,” Macmillan, London.
14. Prelec, Drazen and George Loewenstein (1998), “The Red and the Black: Mental Accounting of Savings and Debt,” Marketing Science, 4-28.
15. Train, Kenneth E. , Daniel L. McFadden, and Moshe Ben-Akiva (1987), “The
Demand for Local Telephone Service: A Fully Discrete Model of Residential Calling Patterns and Service Choices,” Rand Journal of Economics, 18 (1), 109-123.
16. Train, Kenneth E. (1991), “Optimal Regulation: The Economic Theory of Natural Monopoly,” Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. Tversky, A., D. Kahneman. (1991). “Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics.
18. Soman, Dilip (2001), “Effects of Payment Mechanism on Spending Behavior: The Role of Rehearsal and Immediacy of Payments,” Journal of Consumer Research, 460–74.
19. Stigler, G. (1987), “A Theory of Price,” Macmillan, New York.
20. Winer, Russell S. (2005), “Pricing,” Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

指導教授

曾富祥(Fu-Shiang Tseng)

審核日期

2012-7-23

推文