Keywords:Prices; Pricing; Pricing policy; Price strategies; Business performance Resumo Adefinic¸ãodapolítica deprec¸oséuma dasmais importantesdecisõesno âmbito dagestão,poisafeta alucra
Trang 1Revista de Administração
http://rausp.usp.br/ Revista de Administração xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Marketing
Deonir De Tonia,∗, Gabriel Sperandio Milanb, Evandro Busata Sacilotob, Fabiano Larentisa
Q1
aUniversidade Caxias do Sul, Bento Gon¸calves, RS, Brazil
bUniversidade Caxias do Sul, Caxias do Sul, RS, Brazil
Received 13 October 2015; accepted 13 June 2016 Scientific Editor: Filipe Quevedo-Silva
Abstract
Pricepolicydefinitionisoneofthemostimportantdecisionsinmanagementasitaffectscorporateprofitabilityandmarketcompetitiveness.Despite theimportancethatpricestakeinorganizations,itappearsthatthiselementhasnotreceivedproperattentionbymanyacademicsandmarketers sinceitrepresents,accordingtoestimates,lessthan2%ofthepapersonleadingjournalsinthefield.Thus,theaimofthisstudywastoproposeand testatheoreticalmodelshowingtheimpactsofpricingpolicyoncorporateprofitability.Tothisend,150companiesinthemetal-mechanicsector situatedintheNortheastofRioGrandedoSulState,Brazilwerestudied,integratingcustomervalue-basedpricingstrategies,competition-based pricingstrategiesandcost-basedpricingstrategieswithpricelevels(highandlow)andperformancewithrespecttoprofitability.Theresultsindicate thattheprofitabilityofthesurveyedcompaniesispositivelyaffectedbyvalue-basedpricingstrategyandhighpricelevelswhileitisnegatively affectedbylowpricelevels.Suchfindingsindicatethatpricingpoliciesinfluencetheprofitabilityoforganizationsandtherefore,amorestrategic lookatthepricingprocessmayconstituteoneaspectthatcannotbeoverlookedbymanagers
©2016DepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP PublishedbyElsevierEditoraLtda.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Keywords:Prices; Pricing; Pricing policy; Price strategies; Business performance
Resumo
Adefinic¸ãodapolítica deprec¸oséuma dasmais importantesdecisõesno âmbito dagestão,poisafeta alucratividadedasempresas esua competitividadenomercado.Apesardaimportânciaqueoprec¸oassumenasorganizac¸ões,parecequetalelementonãotemrecebidoadevida atenc¸ãodemuitosacadêmicoseprofissionaisdemarketing,porrepresentarmenosde2%dosartigosdasprincipaisrevistasdaárea,segundo estimativas.Destaforma,oobjetivodesteestudofoiodeproporetestarummodeloteóricoqueindiqueosimpactosdapolíticadeprec¸ossobre
alucratividadedasempresas.Paratanto,foramestudadas150empresasdopolometal-mecânicosituadasnaregiãoNordestedoEstadodoRio GrandedoSul,Brasil,integrando-seasestratégiasdeprec¸osbaseadasemvalorparaocliente,naconcorrênciaeemcustoscomosníveis(altos
ebaixos)deprec¸ospraticadoseoseudesempenhonoque serefereàlucratividade.Osresultadosindicamquealucratividadedasempresas estudadaséafetadapositivamentepelaestratégiadeprec¸osbaseadaemvaloreníveisaltosdeprec¸oenegativamentepelosníveisbaixosdeprec¸o Taisachadossinalizamqueaspolíticasdeprec¸ossãoimpactantesnalucratividadedasorganizac¸õeseque,portanto,umolharmaisestratégico paraoprocessodeformac¸ãodeprec¸osconstituiumaspectoquenãopodesernegligenciadopelosgestores
©2016DepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP PublicadoporElsevierEditoraLtda.Este ´eumartigoOpenAccesssobumalicenc¸aCCBY(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Palavras-chave:Prec¸os; Precificac¸ão; Política de prec¸os; Estratégias de prec¸o; Desempenho das empresas
∗Correspondingauthorat:AlamedaJoãoDalSasso,800,CEP95700-000,BentoGonc¸alves,RS,Brazil.
E-mail:dtoni2@ucs.br (D.D Toni).
Peer Review under the responsibility of Departamento de Administrac¸ão, Faculdade de Economia, Administrac¸ão e Contabilidade da Universidade de São Paulo – FEA/USP.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rausp.2016.12.004
0080-2107/© 2016 Departamento de Administrac¸˜ao, Faculdade de Economia, Administrac¸˜ao e Contabilidade da Universidade de S˜ao Paulo – FEA/USP Published
by Elsevier Editora Ltda This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Trang 2Ladefinicióndelapolíticadepreciosesunadelasdecisionesmásimportantesenlagestión,yaqueafectaalarentabilidaddelasempresasy
sucompetitividadenelmercado.Apesardelaimportanciaqueelpreciotieneenlasorganizaciones,parecequeesteelementonoharecibidola debidaatencióndemuchosacadémicosyprofesionalesdemarketing,dadoqueeltemaapareceenmenosdel2%delosartículosdelasprincipales revistasdelárea,segúnestimaciones.Elobjetivoenesteestudioesproponeryponerapruebaunmodeloteóricoqueindiquelosimpactosdela políticadepreciosenlarentabilidaddelasempresas.Paraello,sehanestudiado150empresasdelparqueindustrialmetalmecánicoubicadoen
laregiónnordestedelestadodeRioGrandedoSul,Brasil,ysehanintegradolasestrategiasdefijacióndepreciosconbaseenelvalorparael cliente,enlacompetenciayenloscostosconlosnivelesdeprecios(altosybajos)ysudesempe˜noconrespectoalarentabilidad.Losresultados indicanquelarentabilidaddelasempresasesafectadapositivamenteporlaestrategiadepreciosbasadaenelvalorynivelesdepreciosaltos,
ynegativamenteporlosnivelesdepreciosbajos.Loshallazgosindicanquelaspolíticasdepreciosproducenefectosenlarentabilidaddelas organizacionesyque,porlotanto,unamiradamásestratégicaalprocesodefijacióndepreciosconstituyeunaspectoquelosadministradoresno puedendejardetenerencuenta
©2016DepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP
PublicadoporElsevierEditoraLtda.Esteesunart´ıculoOpenAccessbajolalicenciaCCBY(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Palabras clave: Precios; Fijación de precios; Política de precios; Estrategias de precios; Desempe˜no de las empresas
Introduction
Priceisoneof themostflexibleelementsofthemarketing
mix,whichinterferesdirectlyandinashorttermoverthe
profit-abilityandcosteffectivenessofacompany(Simon,Bilstein,&
perfor-manceofbusinesses,itseemsthatsuchelementhasnotreceived
theproperattentionbymanyacademicsandmarketing
profes-sionals(Avlonitis&Indounas,2006).Typically,inmarketing,
themainfocusisplacedonthedevelopmentofnewproducts,
distributionchannelsandcommunicationstrategies,and
accord-ing to Lacioni (2005) this could lead toprecipitated pricing
Q2
decisionswithoutproperlyevaluatingmarketandcostfactors
Thus,pricingistreatedasthesimpleststrategywithin
market-ing, perhaps because many companiesdetermine their prices
basedonintuitionandthemanager’smarketexperience(Simon,
Q3
1992).Inaddition,onlyfewmanagersstrategicallythinkabout
pricingwhileproactivelyadministratingtheirpricesinorderto
createfavorableconditionsthatleadtoprofits(Nagle&Holden,
2003).Consideringthis,LiozuandHinterhuber(2012)highlight
theneedformoreresearchregardingthepricingpreferencesand
practicesbecause,accordingtotheauthors,lessthan2%ofall
publishedarticlesinmarketingjournalsarefocusedonpricing
Strategic pricing requires a stronger relationship between
marketingandtheothersectorsofacompany.Inordertoenhance
companies’ economic and financial performance, the pricing
policies shouldbe definedbytheir internalcapacities andon
the basic systematical understandingof needs andwishes of
theircustomers,inadditiontomarketconditionssuchas,
eco-nomicconditionsanddegreeofcompetition(Besanko,Dranove,
Q4
context,thisstudy’sobjectivewastoproposeandtesta
theo-reticalmodel thatindicatesthe impactsof pricingpolicies on
company’sprofit On thisregard,the theoretical assumptions
consider as pricing policies the definitions that comprisethe
pricingstrategiesandthepricelevelsusedbycompaniesintheir
respectivemarkets
In this study, the considered pricing strategies are based
competition-based andcost-based pricing strategies; whereas thepricinglevelsareclassifiedashighandlowprices(Urdan&
ele-mentsoverprofitability,thisresearchalsoanalyzedtheimpacts
of moderatingeffectsconsideringsomeindependentvariables
onthebusinessprofitability(dependentvariable)
Itisimportanttomentionthatthisstudywasperformedon
150metal-mechaniccompaniessituatedintheNortheastofRio GrandedoSulState,Brazil,alsocallregionofSerraGaúcha, alongwiththepeopleresponsiblefortheircompanies’pricing process.By usingahierarchicalregressionanalysis,we were abletotestthemainmodelandtheinteractionmodelsagainst our proposedhypothesis,whichwillbe presentedthroughout thisproject
Theoretical background
Pricing strategies
According to Monroe (2003), price decisions are one of themostimportantdecisionsofmanagementbecauseitaffects profitability andthe companies’ return along withtheir mar-ketcompetitiveness.Thus,thetaskofdevelopinganddefining prices is complex and challenging, because the managers involved inthisprocessmustunderstandhowtheircustomers perceivethe prices,howtodeveloptheperceivedvalue,what aretheintrinsicandrelevantcoststocomplywiththisnecessity,
as wellasconsiderthepricingobjectivesofthecompanyand their competitiveposition inthe market(De Toni&Mazzon,
2013;DeToniandMazzon,2014;Hinterhuber&Liozu,2014;
Inthisway,NagleandHogan(2007)arguethatcompanies Q5
whichdonotmanagetheirpriceslosecontroloverthem, impair-ingtheir profitabilityandcosteffectivenessmainlyduetothe
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
100
101
102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116
Trang 3doesitdependontheperceivedvalue,butalsodependsonthe
pricessetbytheleadingcompetitors Consequently,mistaken
orinexistentpricingpoliciescouldleadbuyerstoincreasethe
volumeof informationwhileallowing themtoaugment their
bargainingpowerthusforcingpricereductionsanddiscounts
Thedifferencebetweenconventionalpricesettingandstrategic
pricingconsistsonsettingpricesbyreactingtothemarket
con-ditionsormanagingthemproactively,beingtheirsolepurpose
toexertthe mostprofitable pricing bygeneratingmorevalue
forcustomerswithouttheobligationofincreasingthebusiness’
salesvolume(Nagle&Holden,2003)
Logically,thereisnotauniquewayfordefiningprices.Before
settingaprice,thecompanymustdecidewhatisgoingtobethe
strategyfortheproductinadditiontowhatwillbetheproposed
objectives,sincetheclearerthesedecisions,theeasieritwillbe
toestablishprices(Hinterhuber&Liozu,2013)
AccordingtoHinterhuber(2008),priceshaveahighimpact
Q6
on companies’ profitability, and pricing strategies vary
con-siderablybetweensectors andmarket situations.Nonetheless,
researchersmostlyagreethatpricingstrategiescanbe
catego-rizedinthreebiggroups:cost-basedpricing,competition-based
pricing and customer value-based pricing (Nagle & Holden,
considerationofinformation,perceptionandintrinsicbehavior
ofthe3C’softhisprocess(Cost,CompetitionandCustomers)
asawaytoreachtheoptimalprice.Themanagementofsuch
informationis a crucial factorfor the success of the pricing
definitionstrategyandthepricesettlement.Insomecases,these
practiceshavealsobeendesignatedaspricingmethods(Avlontis
Q7
andIndounas,2005)
Customer value-based pricing strategy
Valueestablishmentcanbedefinedastheofferofbenefitsof
equalorsuperiorvaluetothesacrificesincurredbythepurchaser
foraproductand/orservice.Withinthepossiblesacrifices,there
isthefinancialsacrifice,whichistranslatedbythepricetobe
chargedoractuallypaidbythebuyer(Juran&DeFeo,2010;
settlementincludesthe transformationof theresults fromthe
organizationalstrategyonprogramsaimedtoextractanddeliver
valuetothecompany’scustomers.Inaddition,itidentifiesthe
benefits andcosts(or sacrifices) of products andexperiences
resultingfromtherelationshipbetweenthecustomersandthe
organization.Thesuperiorvalueproposalrepresentsanofferfor
thecustomerswhichincreasesthevalueorsolvesaproblemin
abetterwaythanthoseofferedbysimilarcompetitors(Payne&
Perceivedvalue-basedpricingisapricingpracticeinwhich
the managers takedecisionsbased on the perception of
ben-efits from the item being offered to the customer and how
thesebenefitsareperceivedandweightedbythecustomersin
relationshipto the pricethey pay (Ingenbleek, Frambach, &
busi-nesses, value-based pricing is derived from a set of routine
philosophiesandorganizationalstrategiesthataspecific com-panycoulduseinordertofocusoncustomersatisfactionand,as
aresult,increasestheirprofitability(Cressman,2012).Because
ofthis,Liozu(2010)highlightsthatusingpricesbasedoncus- Q8
tomer’sperceptionofvalueisamoremodernpricingapproach, althoughsometimesitincitesaprofoundorganizationalchange
ontheestablishedorganizationalstructure,thecurrentcorporate structureorthepre-existingprocessesandsystems
In this sense, Ingenbleek, Debruyne, Frambach, and
along withpricing practices that refer tothe useof informa-tionaboutcostsandcompetitors’prices,areintimatelyrelated
totheproduct’sperformance,theserviceandthebusinessasa whole.Theseauthorsdemonstratedthattheusageofvalue-based pricingisakeypricingpracticeforobtaininglargerreturnsand forcreatingsomekindofcomparativeadvantageforthe com-paniesoffers.Thiswasdemonstratedinastudy conductedby
compa-niesinAustriawhichusedwithhigherfrequencytheperceived value-basedpricingstrategy.Theseauthorsidentifiedthatthese companieshadlargercontributionmargins,between11–30%, against 0–10%of thosecompaniesthat didnotusethissame strategy.Thus,theapproachof avalue-basedpricing strategy
is considered superior to other approaches inrelationship to the results obtained by other companies (Hinterhuber, 2004;
weproposethefollowingresearchhypothesis:
H1a. Adoptingavalue-basedpricingstrategyhasadirectand positiveimpactonprofitmargin
Theconstantchangesinthemarket, influencedby techno-logical advances andby increasing change inthe customers’ expectations,areleadingorganizationstoconstantlysearchfor newproductsinordertocontinuebeingprofitableand compet-itive(Boehe,Milan,&DeToni,2009;Cooper,2000)
Theinnovationanddevelopmentofnewproductsareways
of addingvaluetotheproducts orservices while differentiat-ingthemfromtheircompetitors,thusprovidingbetterresults Therefore, inorder for a business to maintain itself as com-petitive andprofitable inthemarket,the developmentofnew products (DNP), and the innovation of their products and processesarefundamentalfactorsforanorganization’s perfor-mance(Cooper&Kleinschmdt,1987).Thus,anewproductthat grantsvaluetothecustomer,duetoitsquality,costreductionor innovationconstitutesacompetitiveadvantagecontributingto
abetterperformanceoftheorganization
InastudydevelopedbyMilan,DeToni,Larentis,andGava
identifiedthatthefactorthatmostlyinfluencesanorganization’s performanceisrelatedtotheachievementoftheirobjectivesby the developmentof newproducts.In otherwords, businesses that achievedtheir sales,marketparticipationandprofit mar-ginsobjectives exhibitedabetterorganizational performance Therefore, it is identified that the success of many organiza-tionsislinkedtothedevelopmentofnewproducts(DNP)that addcustomervalue(Cooper,2000).Itisobservedthata com-panywhichadoptsaconstantinnovativestrategy,mainlyonthe
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198
199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227
Trang 4cus-tomerand,consequently,obtainbetterprofitability(Boeheetal.,
weformulatedthefollowingresearchhypothesis:
H1b. Levelofdevelopmentofnewproducts(DNP)moderates
therelationshipbetweencustomervalue-basedpricingstrategy
and profit margin, and such relationship is stronger in those
companieswhichlaunchmoreproductsintothemarket
Competition-based pricing strategy
Competition-basedpricingusesaskeyinformationthe
com-petitors’pricelevels,aswellasbehaviorexpectations,observed
inrealcompetitorsand/orpotentialprimarysourcestodetermine
adequatepricinglevelstobepracticedbythecompany(Liozu
consideringtheactualpricingsituationofthecompetitors,and
its main disadvantage is that the demand related aspects are
notconsidered.Furthermore,astrongcompetitivefocusamong
the competitors can increase the risk of starting aprice war
amongcompetitorsinthemarket(Heil&Helsen,2001)
Liozuetal.(2011)conductedaresearchmappingthepricing
Q10
processesof companieswhichbasedtheirpriceson
competi-tors and they found that managers use their knowledge and
experiencestodefineprices,aswellasmodelsofcosts,
contribu-tionmargingoals,andwell-structuredprofitgoals.Inaddition,
thesecompanieswerestronglyconsideringthepricesoftheir
maincompetitorswhileaddingapricerewardbyalways
shar-ingthedecisionbasedonthemanager’sintuition,whichisnot
ascientificmethodtodefineprices
Inthissense,competition-basedpricing strategiesarevery
dangerousbecausethecompanydoesnoteffectivelyhaveclear
cost or profit information from its competitor who, in some
instances,may be working withvery low margins(Nagle &
moreefficientproductionprocess,thusthecostswouldnotbe
equivalent,evenbecauseofthescalegains.Therefore,by
fol-lowingthisstrategy,the companyisatrisk ofoperating with
minimalmarginsorevenhavingnegativeprofits.Pricing
reduc-tionstrategiesbasedoncompetition,inwhichcompaniesmay
seekto increasethe volumeof sales,canalso encourage the
competitorstolowertheirpriceswhilecontributingtoa
preda-tory competition and a price war, resulting in reduced profit
marginsandsmallercompanies’profitability(Diamantopoulos,
Besides,inhighlycompetitivemarkets,thepriceinformation
fromcompetitorsbecomes obsoletevery quickly(Ingenbleek
etal.,2010).Inthiscase,itisnecessarytomanagethecapacity
thatcompetitorshavetoreacttothepricingstrategydefinedby
thecompany,whilenotingthatincompetitivemarketsthiscan
increasetheriskofstartingapricewaranddecreasingprofit
researchhypothesis:
H2. Adoptingacompetition-basedpricingstrategyhasadirect
andnegativeimpactonprofitmargin
Cost-based pricing strategy
Cost-based pricingisthe mostsimpleandpopularmethod for settingprices Historically,it isthemostcommon pricing strategybecauseitcarriesasenseoffinancialprudence(Simon
etal.,2008).Thisinvolvesaddingaprofitmarginoncosts,such
asaddingastandardpercentagecontributionmargintothe prod-uctsandservices.First,thesaleslevel(revenue)isdetermined, and then the unit and totalcosts are calculated, followed by checkingthecompany’sprofitobjectivesandfinallyestablishing theprices.Thus,fortheprofessionalsinvolvedinthisprocess,it
isnecessarytoshowtocustomersenoughvalueonproductsand commercialized servicesinordertojustifythepricescharged
bythecompany(Urdan,2005)
AccordingtoastudybyGuilding,Drury,andTayles(2005)
in187companiesintheUnitedKingdomandin90companies
inAustralia,threefactorsthat caninterferewithacost-based strategywereidentified:(i)intensityofcompetition:inahighly competitivemarket,theintensityofcompetitionmayresultin
a loss of contribution andprofit marginsdue tothe pressure
toequaltheirpricestothecompetition,whichturnscostsina highlyrelevantelementsinceitprovidesthelimitsofpricesto
becharged;(ii)companysize:largercompanieshaveagreater capacityofinfluencingprices,becausetheyhavethepropensity
toactasaguideforthepricerangesprevailinginthemarket, evenbecausetheyfrequentlyhavescalegains;and(iii)typeof industries:manufacturingindustrieshavehigherexpensesdue
totheirhighinvestmentsonphysicalfacilitiesandonresources used in manufacturing processes, whichmakes it difficult to accuratelydefinetheindividualcostsofproductsandpotentially forceanincreaseonthetotalcost
Similarly,astudyof84companiesperformedbyMilanetal
onpricesettingbasedoncosts.Thus,thisstrategyencourages companiestousebetterexpendituretechniques
Inaddition,Liozuetal.(2011)conductedastudyonfifteen small andmedium-size Americancompanies byinterviewing forty-fouroftheirmanagers.Insuchstudy,theyaddressedthe threemainpricingstrategies:customervalue-basedpricing(in four companies), cost-based pricing (in six companies) and competition-basedpricing(infivecompanies).Theyidentified thatthemajorityofthecompaniesbasingtheirpricesoncosts developedadvancedcostmodels,allofwhichusedcontribution andprofitmargingoalsinordertosettheirprices.Inthismatter, thefollowingresearchhypothesisisproposed:
H3a. Adoptingacost-basedpricingstrategyhasadirectand positiveimpactonprofitmargin
Basedontheinnovationeconomy,itcanbeinferredthata higherlevelofcompetitioninthemarketencouragescompanies
toinnovate;therefore,theydotheirbesttoincreasetheir perfor-mance.Companiesthat interactmorewiththe foreignmarket eitherbyimportingor exportinghaveastrongerconcernwith thecompany’scostthanthosethatdonothaveforeignactivities
that companiesthat lookfor acost-basedpricing strategyare always searching for alternatives for cost reduction Among
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323
324 325
326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334
Trang 5emergedasastrategyforcostreductionand,consequently,for
the improvement of the profit margins (Boehe et al., 2009)
Hence, it is assumed that the relationship between the
cost-basedpricing strategyandtheprofitmargincouldbestronger
atthecompaniesthatoperatewithimportedrawmaterialsand
supplies.Considering this, the following researchhypothesis
emerges:
H3b. Import of raw materials and supplies moderates the
relationshipbetweencost-basedpricingstrategyandprofit
mar-gin,andthisrelationshipwouldbestrongerforcompaniesthat
import
Price levels
AccordingtoHinterhuber (2004),the impactof price
lev-elsonprofitabilityishigh,whichmeansthat eventhe impact
ofsmallincreasesofpriceonprofitsandcorporateprofitability
byfarexceedstheimpactofotherleveragesinmanagingbest
results.Inhisstudy,itwaspossibletodetectedthata5%increase
inaveragesalespricesmayincreasetheearningsbefore
inter-estandtaxes(EBIT)by22%,onaverage,comparedtoa12%
increaseonthesalesvolumeanda10%costreductionofsold
goods,respectively.Inotherwords,ofalltheelementsavailable
tomanagers,thepriceiswhathasthelargerimpacton
corpo-rateresults,reflectingonrepresentativegains(Kohlia&Surib,
2011).Evidenceof thisnature suggeststhatmanagersshould
abandontherationaleofhavingagreatermarketshareandan increasedbusinessvolume(sales,revenues)infavorofavision morefocusedtoprofits(Simonetal.,2008).Theresultsindicate thatcompaniesthatpracticeahigherpriceagainstthepriceof theircompetitorsobtaingreaterprofits,whichprobablyisrelated
tosuperiorcustomervalue.Thisjustifiesthechargeof higher pricesand,asaresult,enhancesthebusinessperformance
AsreportedinastudydevelopedbyMilanetal.(2013), mar-ket penetration-based pricingstrategies, meaning thepractice
oflowerorsmallerprices,presentedasignificantandnegative relationship withthe business performance of the companies investigated.Suchfactcouldbeexplainedbyitsrelationshipsto offeringlowerpricesthanthecompetition.Therefore,lowprices aremorestronglyassociatedwithlowerprofitsandviceversa
hypotheses:
H4. Adoptinghighpricelevelshasadirectandpositiveimpact
onprofitmargin
H5. Adoptinglowpricelevelshasadirectandnegativeimpact
onprofitmargin
Tofacilitatecomprehension,Fig.1showstheproposed theo-reticalframeworkwhichindicatesthemaineffectsbetweenthe constructsandthetestedinteraction(moderation)effectsalong withtheproposedresearchhypotheses
Main effect Interaction/Moderation effect
Price based
on value
Price based
on competiton
Price based
on costs
High price level
Low price level
New products Imports
H3b H1b
H5 – H4 + H3a + H2 – H1a +
Profit margin
Fig 1 Proposed theoretical framework and research hypotheses.
Source:Elaborated by the authors (2015).
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375
376 377
378 379
380 381 382
Trang 6Research method
Target population, sample and data collection procedures
The target population, for study purposes, according to
SIMECS (Trade Union of Metallurgical, Mechanical and
Electric Material Industries of Caxias do Sul) represented
approximately2600companiestotalingaround45thousandjobs
dividedamongthemetal-mechanic,automotiveandelectronics
sectors.However,service-providingcompanieswereexcluded,
as, forexample, surfacemetal treatment firmssuch as
galva-nizing,paintingorthosethatmanufactureproductsdeveloped
byothers,whichgenerallyhiresmallerfirmstoproduce
com-ponentsthateventuallywouldbeaddedtothefinalproductof
theothercompany.Itmaybecited,asanexample,companies
linkedtothemoldingsectorandsomemillingcompanies.After
definingthesecriteria,wereachedtoatargetcompany
popula-tionthathavetheirownproductsandfittheobjectivesofthis
study,totaling730companies
Thedatacollectionprocessoccurredbyastructuredsurvey
which was validated through a pre-test (Malhotra, Birks, &
companies With the objective to formalize the request to
participatein theresearch,we sentalong an explanatorytext
which requested that the questionnaire would be directed to
the personresponsible of definingthe pricesof the company
ortosomeonewhoacteddirectlyinthepricingprocess.With
thisapproach,wesoughttodirecttheresearchinstrumenttoa
responsiblepersoninthecompanywhohadgreatercontroland
relativeexperienceintheanalyzedcontext
ThedatacollectionwasperformedbetweenJuneandAugust
of2014.Inordertoincreasethereturnofrespondents,wesent
follow-upmessagesviae-mailinordertoraiseawarenessofthe
potentialrespondents.Asfor thelargercompaniesonthe list,
wemadetelephonecallsreinforcingtheresearchrelevanceand
theimportanceofobtainingthemanager’sperception.Attheend
oftheprocess,157questionnaireswereobtained(validcases),
havinga21.5%return
Data analysis process
According to Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham
toconcludethattherearestatistical differencesatsomepoint
betweenthegroups’means.Inthisregard,consideringtheneed
forposthocanalysis,weoptedtoconducttheTukeyHSDtest,
whichismoreaccurate,becauseitgeneratesconfidence
inter-valswithloweramplitudefacilitatingthecontroloftypeIerror
The data were also analyzed by hierarchical regression
(OLS), which resulted in four models The first one with
only two control variables; the second one with the
con-trol variables and the independent variables; and the third
and fourth models with the control variables, independent
variables andthe interaction effects betweenthe control and
independentvariables.Itisimportanttonotethatwhen
inter-actioneffectsarecalculated,itisrecommendedtostandardize
the independent variables(Jaccard&Turrisi,2003; Osborne,
Forthisreason,thetransformationofindependentvariables wereperformedonZ-scores.Moreover,wecheckedthepremises
ofmultipleregressionanalysis.Withregardtonormaldataon theremainingsampleof150cases(aftereliminatingthe miss-ing values and uni- and multivariate outliers), we tested the assumedunivariatenormality(fromthedataskewnessand kur-tosis).Theunivariatenormalityconditionwasmetinallmodel variables,inwhichthedataasymmetrywasbetween−2.117and 1.625,withanmeanvalueof−0.326.Inrelationofthe ampli-tudeofkurtosis,itliesat−1.318and7.837,withameanvalue
of−0.194
Thehomoscedasticityconditionwasanalyzedbasedonthe Box’sMtestandtheLevene’stest(Hairetal.,2009).Theresults
ofLevene’stestindicatethenon-metricvariables(markettime, numberofemployeesandrevenues)whichshowedsomevisible heteroscedasticity problem.The resultsindicate that the vari-able11(totalcostoftheproduct)andvariable40(numberof active customers) show heteroscedasticity patterns, which shouldbeobservedwithcaution.However,byhaving a theo-retical support (Urdan, 2005)we decided to retainthese two variablesintheregressionanalysis
Thelinearityconditionwasevaluatedbasedona standard-izedresidualsplot (Hairetal.,2009).Through verificationof scatter plots,it wasfoundthat the variablesfromthe studied model showlinearrelationships Finally,themulticollinearity wasanalyzedbythetolerancetest,havingidentifiedthat they allshowedacceptablelevelswhilesituating thetolerance lev-elsbetween0.46and0.85withavarianceinflationfactor(VIF) between1.05and2.17,whichindicatesthatthe multicollinear-ityisnotaprobleminrelationtotheselectedvariables(Hair
Operationalization of constructs and respective variables
The researchquestionnairewascomposedof 40variables, groupedindimensions,accordingtothetheoreticalmodel pro-posed.ItusedaLikertscaleofsevenpoints,wheretheendswere represented from 1 (totally disregarded/stronglydisagree/low performance)to7(fullyconsidered/stronglyagree/high perfor-mance)
Pricing strategies
From the scale adapted from Urdan and Osaku (2005),
we used 15 questions (variables) related to the aspects con-sidered or not in the price defining process for the main products of theresearchedcompanies.In thispartof the sur-vey, we obtained three factorsafter the removal of variables V7:“Salessystems(marketing),advertisinganddistributionof competitors”,V14:“Sales volume(income)necessaryfor the achievement of a break-even point”, and V15: “Investments
on new products” These variables were eliminated because their factor loadingswere below0.5 The variance explained
by thesethreefactorswas 63.75%.TheKMOtestwas0.790 andBartlett’stestofsphericityshowedChi-squareof696.517
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468
469
470 471 472 473 474 475
476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488
Trang 7Table 1
Price definition.
Q13
F1: Competition-based prices
F2: Customer value-based prices
F3: Cost-based prices
Source:Survey data (2015).
andsignificance(p<0.001)displayingproperlevels(Malhotra
Foreachfactorformed,anewvariablewascreatedfromthe
meanofeachvariablethatintegratesthisfactor.Thus,Factor1
wasnamedF1: Competition-based Prices,whichwasformed
fromthevariablesV9:“Reactionofourcompetitorstoour
com-pany’sprices”,V5:“Price ofourcompetitor’sproducts”,V8:
“Currentpricingstrategyofourcompetitors”,V6:“Degreeof
competitioninthemarket”,andV10:“Competitiveadvantages
of competitorsinthe market”.The second factorwasnamed
F2: Customer Value-based Prices,which wasformed from
thevariablesV1:“Advantagesthattheproductofferstothe
cus-tomer”,V4:“Perceivedvalueoftheproductbythecustomers
(benefitsversuscosts)”,V2:“Balancebetweentheadvantages
oftheproductanditspossibleprice”,andV3:“Advantagesthat
theproductoffersincomparisontothecompetitors’products”
Finally,thethirdfactorwasnamedF3: Cost-based Prices,
com-posedbythevariablesV11:“Totalcostof theproduct”,V13:
“Profitmarginpercentagesetbythecompanyinrelationtothe
priceoftheproduct”,andV12:“Variablecostsoftheproduct”
AccordingtoTable1,whichincludesdatafromFactor
Anal-ysis,itispossibletoobservethatthesurveyedcompaniestend
toconsiderthecostsasthemainapproachduringtheirproduct’s
pricesettlementprocess,sincethemeanregisteredforF3:
Cost-basedPriceswasof6.24.ThefactorF2:CustomerValue-based
Pricesremainedasthesecondoptionwithameanof5.76,and
thefactorF3:Competition-basedPriceswasconsideredasthe
thirdoptionwithanmeanof5.14.Itisimportanttopointout
thatthethreestrategicapproachespresentedmeanshigherthan
5ina7-pointscale,suggestingthatcompaniestendtoconsider
thethreeapproachesduringthepricedefinitionprocessoftheir
products.ItisobservedthattheCronbach’sAlphaforfactorF3
(Cost-basedPrices)stoodat0.591,neartheborderzoneof0.60
Evenwithalowconfidenceindexwedecidedtoleavethis
con-structinouranalysis,firstly,because ithasatheoreticalbase
thatsupportsit(Nagle&Holden,2003)and,secondly,because
thevaluesfrom0.60to0.70areconsideredthelowerlimitof
acceptabilitybyHairetal.(2009)
Price levels: defining factors and variables
generallyexpressedinmonetarylevelsandscales,as,for exam-ple,highpricesversuslowprices.Nevertheless,therearealso manyotherfactorsthatmaynotbedirectlylinkedtotheprices suchas,location,credibility,company’sreputation,comparison withitscompetitorsandothers.Thus,usinganadaptedscaleof
whichtwofactorsweredefined:
a) F1: Low prices,groupingvariablesV21:“We definelow pricetoleveragesalesvolumeandtoreducecoststhrough accumulated experience”,V22: “We always tryto havea pricelowerthanourcompetitors’pricesinthemarket”,and V29:“Ourpricesarelowinthemarketduetotheinferior qualityofourproductsinrelationtocompetitors”;
b) F2: High prices,composedbythevariablesV23:“Weoffer ourproductsatahigherpriceonthemostimportantsectors
of the market andalowerprice bymeans ofdiscounts in lessimportantsectors”,V26:“Forproductsthathave com-plementaryoroptionalitems(suchasaccessories,parts,and services),we putalowerprofit marginonthebasic prod-uct (central)andahigherprofitmarginoncomplementary items(premiumprice)”,V30:“Weofferproductsets(aset
of variousproducts) atatotalpricethat allowscustomers
tosavemoney,insteadofpurchasingtheproducts individu-ally(separately)”,V19:“Wedefineahighpriceinitiallyand thenwereduceitsystematicallyovertime”,andV25:“Our customersseethe pricesofourproducts as ahighquality indicator”
According to the data of Factor Analysis, the two factors obtaineda59.6%ofexplainedvariance,veryclosetothelimit recommendedbyHairetal.(2009),whichsuggestssufficient factorstoattendanexplainedvariancepercentage,generallyof 60% or more KMO test resulted in 0.772and the Bartlett’s sphericitytestresultedinaChi-squareof369.63withp<0.001 significancelevel.Thesetestsshowedadequatelevelsaswellas theCronbach’sAlphaforbothfactors.Withthesefactors,new
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535
536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555
556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563
Trang 8Table 2
Price levels.
Factor Variables Factor loadings % variance Cronbach’s alpha Mean Standard deviation
F1: Low prices
F2: High prices
Source:Survey data (2015).
variableswere generatedfrom themean of the variablesthat
formedeachfactor,soitispossibletonoticethatthesurveyed
companies tendto agree more(mean=4.11) on ahigh price
strategyandtodisagreeonalowpricestrategy(mean=2.83)
The fact that companies agree more on the higher price
practiceandagreelessonthelowerpricepracticemaybelinked
tothemarketcharacteristicsinwhichthesecompaniesoperate
Thus,fortherespondents,definingahigherpricepracticemay
signalabetterqualityand,consequently,itleadstobetterprofit
marginsfor the company.Thismay beseenwhen analyzing,
singly,V29variable:“Ourpricesarelowinthemarketdueto
theinferiorqualityof ourproducts .”,sincetheir meanwas
2.08,and132oftheanalyzedcompanies,bymeansofthe
inter-viewedmanagers,disagreewiththisaffirmation.Thisnumber
ofcompaniescorrespondsto86.3%ofthesampleand,among
them,80totallydisagree,whichrepresents52%oftheanalyzed
sample
Business performance
Regardingthe business performance,an analysisbased on
theprofitmarginreportedbythecompanieswasimplemented
Thisvariablewas alsoused inthe studydeveloped byMilan
companies’ average net profit is between 5% and 10%, and
that25companies(16.4%ofthesample)showedaprofitability
above15%
Finally,weusedtwocontrolvariables.Oneofthemwasthe
numberof newlyreleasedproducts inthe past2 years(these
variablesweretransformedintoalogarithmicscaleduetotheir
largedispersion),andtheotherwasifthecompanyimportedor
not,measuredfromabinaryvariable(0=itdoesnotimport,and
1=itimports)
Results
Inthissection,wepresentthemainresearchresultsinrelation
tothesamplecharacterizationandtotheanalysiscomingfrom
thedatacollected
Sample description and variance analysis
Ofthe150surveyedcompaniesonthemetal-mechanic
indus-try of Serra Gaúcha region, situated in the northeast of Rio
Grande do Sul State, 54.9% of them belong to the metal-mechanic sector,23.5% belong tothe automotive sectorand theremaining21.6%belongtotheelectronicssector.Theyhave
ameanof21yearsofexperienceinthemarketand,according
toourfindings,39.6%ofthecompanieshave20yearsof expe-riencewhile 40%of themareonthe rangewith10–20 years
of experience The remaining 22.2% haveup to 10 years of experienceinthemarket
When talking about the number of employees, 35.3% of thecompanieshaveupto19employees,37.9%havefrom20
to 100 employees,and the remaining26.9%have morethan
100employees.Abouttheirrevenue,accordingtotheBNDES guidelines (BrazilianDevelopmentBank),24.2%ofthe com-panies havean annual gross revenueof 2.4million (for that reason they are consideredmicroenterprises), 34.0%have an annual revenue of up to 16 million (considered small enter-prises),25.5%haveanannualrevenueofupto90million(being characterizedasmedium-sizedenterprises),and,lastly,16.4%
ofthecompanieshaveanannualrevenueabove90million(being characterizedasmedium-largeorlargeenterprises)
Inthequestionnaire,weaskedifthecompanycarried com-mercialactivityonforeignmarketandwefoundoutthat39.9%
ofcompaniesexport,andtheseexportsaccountforupto10%
of their annualrevenuein38outof 60exportingcompanies For the remaining 22 companies, these exports account for morethan10% of theirannualrevenue Wealsoaskedabout theirimports.Overall,52.3%ofthecompaniesmadepurchases
intheforeignmarket (imports),andtheremaining47.7%did notmakepurchasesintheforeignmarket
Regardingthelaunchofnewproducts,34.6%ofcompanies declaredthattheyhadreleaseduptothreenewproductsinthe past2years,28.8%launchedbetweenthreeandtenproducts,and 36.6%declaredhavinglaunchedmorethantenproductswithin thisperiod.Regardingtheprofitmarginofthecompanies,2.7% statedthattheirprofitmarginwasnegative,while55.3%reported havinguptoa10%profitmargin.Theremaining42%declared having aprofit margin above 10% The results are shownin
FromtheANOVAbetweentheprofitmarginandthesector
or branchofactivityofthecompanies,revenuevolume, num-berofemployees,timeinthemarket,numberofnewproducts launched,importingandexportingcompany,weidentifiedsome significantdifferencesamongthecompanies’profiles.Among thesevariables,weobservedsignificantdifferenceswithregard
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647
Trang 9Table 3
Profit margins of the companies.
Source:Survey data (2015).
tothefieldofactivities, revenuesandthefactofimportingor
not
Itisevidentthat companiesontheelectricaland
electron-ics industry have a higher profit margin (mean=4.00) than
thoseonthemetal-mechanicindustry(mean=3.14;p=0.000)
andthoseontheautomotiveindustry(mean=3.14;p=0.042)
Two assumptions may emerge from this result, firstly due
to the fact that companies in the electrical and electronics
industry tend todefine their prices based on customer value
(mean=6.14)morethanthecompaniesinthemetal-mechanic
industry(mean=5.54;p=0.005),and,secondly,becauseofthe
volumeofnewproductslaunched,consideringthattheelectrical
andelectronicsindustrylaunchesmorenewproducts(morethan
tenproducts every2years)thanthe metal-mechanicindustry
(lessthantennewproductsevery2years,p=0.001).Therefore,
thefactsthatthesecompaniesaremoreproactiveinthe
devel-opmentofnewproductsandaddmorevaluetotheirproducts,
maybejustifywhytheirprofitmarginsarehigher
Withregardstorevenues,thecompanieswithrevenuesabove
R$2,400,000.00haveaprofitmarginhigherthan10%,whilethe
companieswithrevenuesbelowthisrangedisplayaprofit
mar-ginbelow10%(p=0.007).Thiscanalsobejustifiedbythefact
thatthesecompaniesadoptedamoreintensecustomer
value-basedpricingstrategy(mean=6.03versus5.50;p=0.000)and
thattheylaunchedmorenewproducts intheirmarkets (more
thantenproductsevery2years,p=0.000)
Regarding the release of newproducts, it was found that
companiesthatlaunchedmorethantenproductsevery2years
displayedahigherprofitmargin(morethan10%)in
compari-sontothosethatlaunchedlessthantenproductsevery2years
(p=0.002).AccordingtoBoeheetal.(2009),product
innova-tionstrategy,competitiveintensityinthemarket,andfunctional
integrationamongthevariousareasofthecompanyinfluence
significantlythedevelopmentof newproducts (DNP)andthe
performance.Thus,marketcompetitivenessandthe
organiza-tionalstrategiesgearedtonewproductsdrivethecompaniesto
developmoreproducts,improvingtheprofitmargin
Asignificantdifferenceintheprofitmarginsofcompanies
that import wasalso noticed Companies that import show a
superiorprofit margin(mean=3.68)when comparedtothose
thatdonotimport(mean=3.08,p=0.001).Thefactthatthese
companiesimportindicatesthattheyaretryingtoreducetheir
costsaswellastheymaybereleasingmorenewproductsin
rela-tiontothosethatdonotimport(p=0.001),maybebecausethey
searchforinnovationsintheforeignmarketandtrytolaunch theminthenationalmarket.Inaddition,thegainsassociatedto thestrategyofusingimportedrawmaterialsandsuppliesmay resultinhigherprofitmarginsdependingontheexchangerate appreciation.Similarly,theexchangerateappreciationincreases the exposuretoforeigncompetitors Therefore,aninnovation strategy allowsimportant distinctions, leadingto competitive advantages, canaddmore customervalue and, consequently, thecompanycanachievebetterprofits(Boeheetal.,2009;De
Pricing policies and their relationship with business performance
BasedontheconstructsofPricingStrategies(customer value-based,competition-based andcost-based)andPriceLevelsin relationtothecompetition (higherorlower),itwasidentified thatcost-basedandcompetition-basedpricingstrategiesdidnot showsignificantdifferencesbetweentheirmeanswithregardto the profit margins On the other hand, customer value-based pricing strategies showed a significant difference (p=0.000) betweenthemeans
Forexample, 30companieswithaprofit marginfrom 0%
to5%displayeda5.13 meaninthe usageofcustomer value-basedpricingstrategies,while65companieswithaprofitmargin above 10% have a6.15 mean when using this strategy.This indicates that the greater the usage of a value-based pricing strategy, the greater are the opportunities for the companies
to increase their profit margin Such evidence confirms the proposalthattheusageofacustomervalue-basedpricing strat-egy enablesabetterprofitabilityfor thecompanies(Nagle&
performancewithregard tonewproductdevelopment(DNP) (more thanten products every2 years) usemore acustomer value-based pricing strategy (mean High DNP=6.03 versus meanLowDNP=5.30,p=0.000)thananyotherpricing strate-gies
Thisfactcouldberelatedtothesearchforabetter understand-ingofthemarket,thusbetterunderstandingthespecificneedsof thecustomers,whodemandamorediversifiedlineofproducts andahigherlevelofquality.Suchresultsaresimilartothoseof
innovationstrategiesorlaunchalargenumberofproductsinto themarkettendtohavebetterperformance.Theseresultsalso complement the ideasuggested by Cooper (2000) that com-panieswithadifferentiationstrategy,withuniquebenefitsand superiorcustomervaluetendtohaveabetterperformanceinthe market
Therearesomeimportantunderstandingsthatresultedfrom the ANOVAtestbetweentheprofit marginandtheprice lev-els.First,regardingtolowpricingpractice,itwasidentifieda decreasingresultinrelationtoprofitmarginsrelatedtohigh pri-cingpractice(p=0.000).Thus,thegreater thecomplianceon employingthelowpricingpractice,thelowertheprofitmargins
ofthecompany.Forexample,the85companiesthat predomi-nantlysetlowprices(mean=3.22)showedmarginsbelow10%
In contrast, the 65 companies that adopt such practice to a
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701
702 703
704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746
Trang 10Table 4
Correlations among the constructs.
1 Business performance (net profit margin) 1
4 Customer value-based prices 0.481 ** 0.401 ** −0.425 ** 1
Source:Survey data (2015).
Note:* Significant level of 10%; ** Significant level of 5%.
Obs.: all variables were standardized (mean = 0; standard deviation = 1).
smallerextent (mean=2.30) showprofit marginsabove10%
Thesecondfindingisconsistentwiththefirstone,asthereisan
increasingandsignificantrelationshipbetweenusinghighprice
practiceandhavingabetterprofitmargin.Thegreaterthe
utiliza-tionofthispractice,thegreatertheprofitmargin(p=0.000).For
example,65companiesthatpracticehighpricesshowaprofit
marginabove10%,while85companiesthatusesuchpractice
toasmallerextentshowprofitmarginsbelow10%(meanHigh
Price=4.75versusmeanLowPrice=3.64,p=0.000)
Likewise, concerning the development of new products
(DNP),theresultsindicatethat companiesthat usehighprice
levels develop more new products (mean High Price=4.11
versus mean Low Price=2.83, p=0.000) For example, the
56companieswhichdevelopedmorethantenproducts every
2yearsuse,withgreaterintensity,highpricinglevels.Theresults
revealsimilaritiestothestudiesbySimonetal.(2008)andMilan
tendtohaveabetterperformancethanthosethatemploylow
prices
Whencomparingpricingstrategieswiththeperformanceand
itsrelationshipwiththemarketshareofthecompanies,itwas
observedthat the companieswhichadopthighpricesdisplay
a larger market share if compared to those whichoffer low
prices(meanHighPrice=4.11versusmeanLowPrice=2.83,
p=0.000).Theseresultsindicatethatpracticinglowpricelevels
notalwaysitispossibletoleveragelargermarketshareorlarger
salesvolume, because lowprices mayalsosuggesta smaller
perceivedlevelofquality(DeToni&Mazzon,2013;Zeithaml,
Impact of pricing policies on profit margin and its
moderating factors
Thisstage of the study included an assessment through a
multiplelinearregressionoftherelationshipsbetweenthesetof
metricexplanatoryvariables,inthiscaserepresentedbythe
fac-torslinkedtothepricingstrategyandthechargedpricelevels,
which most influence the profitability of the analyzed
com-panies Forthe operationalization of the analysis, we used a
stepwisemultipleregression,whichhasasamaincharacteristic
theindividualassessmentofeachvariablecontributionbefore
developing the equation The independent variable with the
greatestcontributionisaddedfirstandtheindependentvariables
areselectedforinclusionbasedontheirincrementalcontribution
over thevariablesalreadypresentintheequation (Hairetal.,
Consideringthis,firstofall,Table4presentsthecorrelations among the constructs Wepointout the correlationsbetween businessperformanceandhighprices(0.471),business perfor-mance andcustomer value-basedprices(0.481) andbusiness performanceandlowprices(−0.453)
Fortestingthehypotheses,thedatawereanalyzedby hier-archical regression,whichshows thatby addingoneormore predictive variablestothe existingregression equation it sig-nificantlyincreasestheexplanationofthevarianceofanalysis criteria(Jaccard&Turrisi,2003;Osborne,2014).Inaddition, theeffectsofinteractionormoderationarepresentedinorderto testH1bandH3bhypotheses,whichidentifythepresenceofa dependentvariable,independentvariable(s),andathirdvariable seenasthemoderator Therefore,thereisamoderatingeffect whentheeffectoftheindependentvariableoverthedependent variablediffersasafunctionofthemoderatingvariable(Jaccard
Inthemultipleregressionanalysis,weobservedthatallthe fourmodelstestedweresignificantatthelevelp<0.01,asshown
(numberofnewproductslaunchedandifthecompanyimportsor not),explains7.9%(adjustedR-squared)ofthetotalvariance, suggesting how much the two variablesinfluenceprofit mar-gin.Theresultsshowedthattheperformancewithnewproducts andthefactthatthecompanyimportsornothaveasmall par-ticipation onthecompany’sprofit margin.Besides,morethan 92%ofotherfactorsmayalsoinfluencecompany’sprofitability Eventhoughthoseitems’participationinprofitabilityislow,the resultsofthesurveyindicate,asseeninthevariancetests,that companieswhichdevelopandlaunchmoreproductsandwhich importhaveahigherprofitmargin
Model 2 includes the maineffects between the dependent variable,theprofitmargin.Itwasnotedthattheexplained vari-anceissignificantlygreater(R2=35.7%;F=11.96),meaning thattheindependentvariablesaddexplanatoryvaluetothe equa-tion
In model3,itwasaddedtheinteractioneffectbetweenthe independent variable (customervalue-based pricing strategy) andthecontrolvariable(developmentofnewproducts–DNP) The resultsshowthatthismodelisalso significant.Although the explained variance increased only 2.5%, this increase
of the explainedvariancefrom 35.7%to38.2%issignificant
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832