open access
메뉴.png){kind=logo}
open access
메뉴
본 연구에서는 미술관과 같은 공공전시서비스의 방문율을 높이고 전시관의 수익 향상에 도움이 되는 가격전략 분석을 위해 소비자가 입장료 금액을 자유롭게 제시할 수 있는 Pay-What-You-Want(PWYW) 실험을 진행하였다. 고정 입장료를 제시하는 방식과 PWYW로 제시하는 방식에 따라 응답자의 국립현대미술관 방문의도와 지불의사금액 및 예상 총수익에 차이가 있는지를 분석하고, 다음으로 PWYW에 자선기부 및 기준점효과를 결합하여 1인당 평균 지불의사금액이 어떻게 달라지는가를 분석하였다. 실증분석은 1) 고정가격/PWYW+낮은 수준의 준거가격, 2) PWYW, 3) PWYW+자선기부, 4) PWYW+높은 수준의 준거가격과 같이 네 가지 지불방식별로 집단을 구분하여 각기 다른 시나리오를 제시한 후, 방문의도와 지불의사금액 측정을 통해 이루어졌다. 이를 위해 만 25세부터 30세를 대상으로 설문을 통해 실험을 진행하였으며, 각각의 집단별로 120명 이상의 표본수를 확보하였다. 실험 결과, 고정가격 집단 대비 PWYW 집단의 방문의도와 1인당 지불의사금액이 증가하고, 이에 총수익도 함께 증가하는 것을 확인하였다. 또한 PWYW에 자선기부가 결합되는 경우 1인당 평균 지불의사금액이 증가하여 총수익 면에서 PWYW 케이스보다 우월한 것을 확인하였다. 마지막으로 준거가격에 대한 기준점효과를 검증한 결과, 낮은 준거가격을 제시하는 경우 평균 지불의사금액이 준거가격에 수렴하는 반면 높은 준거가격을 제시하는 경우 수렴하는 정도가 약한 것을 확인하였다. 본 연구의 결과는 PWYW 가격전략을 효과적으로 적용하면 국공립미술관의 재정 자립에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 동시에 다수의 잠재적 관람자를 끌어들여 일반 시민들의 문화예술 향유 증대라는 목적까지 달성할 수 있음을 시사하고 있다.
This study conducts a Pay-What-You-Want (PWYW) experiment in order to derive a price strategy that helps to improve profits of public art exhibitions as well as to increase the number of visitors to the museums. PWYW is a pricing mechanism where buyers pay the amount he/she wants to pay for goods and services. We compared respondents' intention to visit, amount of willingness to pay, total expected earnings between the method of presenting a fixed entrance fee to respondents and the method of presenting PWYW to them. In what follows we proceeded further to analyze how the average amount of willingness to pay changes when PWYW is combined with charitable giving and reference price (RP), respectively. We classified the whole respondents into the following four groups according to payment methods: 1) fixed price/PWYW+low-level RP, 2) PWYW, 3) PWYW+charity, and 4) PWYW+high-level RP, and measured their intention to visit the National Museum of Art and the amount of willingness to pay for entry. An empirical experiment was conducted toward a group aged 25 to 30. We secured about 120 samples for each classified group. Our results show that the intention to visit and the per capita amount of willingness to pay increased under the PWYW case, compared to the case of a fixed entrance fee. Accordingly, the total expected return increased also. Futhermore, when charity is grafted onto PWYW the per capita expected payment and the total expected earnings increased from the case of PWYW alone. Lastly, we found that the average amount of willingness to pay was converged to RP at all conventional statistical significance levels when a low-level RP was grafted onto PWYW, but it was not converged to RP at any significance level when a high-level RP was grafted onto PWYW, meaning that the anchoring effect is salient at relatively lower levels of RP. The results of the study imply that an effective application of PWYW pricing strategy can have a positive effect on financial independence of the National Museum of Art as well as can attract more visitors to the museum which helps to achieve the policy for expanding the people’s enjoyment of culture and arts.
경향신문 (2013. 4. 29), 소비자들이 정한 장기하 신곡 가격은 976원.
고영우 (2018). 경매 이론과 현실 적용 사례. 산업조직연구, 26(4), 115-151.
국립현대미술관 (2019). 2018 미술관 연보, 국립현대미술관 연간보고서.
남소현 (2013). 현장실험을 통한 Pay-what- you-want 가격전략연구. 서강대학교 대학원 석사학위 논문.
문화체육관광부 (2019). 2019 국민문화예술활동조사.
문화체육관광부 (2019). 2019 미술시장실태조사(2018년도 기준).
문화체육관광부 (2019). 2019 전국 문화기반시설 총람.
박지현, 신형덕, 현은정 (2019). 전시 무료입장 정책이 관람의도에 미치는 영향. 경영학연구, 48(1), 33-52.
안필연 (2014). 21 세기 미술관의 딜레마: 한국 미술관의 재정 자립과 공공성 제고에 관한 제언. 미술이론과 현장, 18, 277-304.
안필연 (2018). 경영자립의 관점에서 본 미술관의 공공성 확보를 위한 대안 모색: 영국과 프랑스의 미술관 법인화를 중심으로. 유럽문화예술학회논집, 9(1), 1-16.
정다은, & 현명호 (2015). CVM 을 이용한 박물관의 가치평가와 지불의사 결정요인에 관한 연구. 관광연구저널, 29(7), 165-180.
최정원, & 남태우 (2018). 과학관의 효율성에 대한 통합적 논의: 공공전시서비스의 관점. 한국과학예술융합학회, 33, 239-254.
행정안전부 (2019). 2019년도 책임운영기관 종합평가 보고서(최종보고서)
Crespo, B. (2019). Pay as you wish as a museum pricing mechanism. Doctoral dissertation. Nova School of Business & Economics, Lisbon. Portugal.
Gneezy, A., Gneezy, U., Nelson, L. D., & Brown, A. (2010). Shared social responsibility: A field experiment in pay-what-you-want pricing and charitable giving. Science, 329(5989), 325-327.
Gneezy, A., Gneezy, U., Riener, G., & Nelson, L. D. (2012). Pay-what-you-want, identity, and self-signaling in markets. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(19), 7236-7240.
Greiff, M., & Egbert, H. (2018). A review of the empirical evidence on PWYW pricing. Economic and Business Review for Central and South-Eastern Europe, 20(2), 169-305.
Egbert, H., Greiff, M., & Xhangolli, K. (2015). Pay What You Want (PWYW) pricing ex post consumption: a sales strategy for experience goods. Journal of Innovation Economics Management, 16(1), 249-264.
Hinz, O., Hann, I. H., & Spann, M. (2011). Price discrimination in e-commerce? An examination of dynamic pricing in name-your-own price markets. Mis quarterly, 81-98.
Jang, H., & Chu, W. (2012). Are consumers acting fairly toward companies? An examination of pay-what-you-want pricing. Journal of Macromarketing, 32(4), 348-360.
Johnson, J. W., & Cui, A. P. (2013). To influence or not to influence: External reference price strategies in pay-what-you-want pricing. Journal of Business Research, 66(2), 275-281.
Jung, M. H., Nelson, L. D., Gneezy, A., & Gneezy, U. (2014). Paying more when paying for others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(3), 414.
Jung, M. H., Nelson, L. D., Gneezy, U., & Gneezy, A. (2017). Signaling virtue: Charitable behavior under consumer elective pricing. Marketing Science, 36(2), 187-194.
Jung, M. H., Perfecto, H., & Nelson, L. D. (2016). Anchoring in payment: Evaluating a judgmental heuristic in field experimental settings. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(3), 354-368.
Kahsay, G. A., & Samahita, M. (2015). Pay-what-you-want pricing schemes: A self-image perspective. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 7, 17-28.
Kim, J., Natter, M., & Spann, M. (2009). Pay what you want: A new participative pricing mechanism. Journal of Marketing, 73(1), 44-58.
Kim, J., Natter, M., & Spann, M. (2014). Sampling, discounts or pay-what-you-want: Two field experiments. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 31(3), 327-334.
Kunter, M. (2015). Exploring the pay-what-you-want payment motivation. Journal of Business Research, 68(11), 2347-2357.
Nunes, J. C., & Boatwright, P. (2004). Incidental prices and their effect on willingness to pay. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(4), 457-466.
Park, S., Nam, S., & Lee, J. (2017). Charitable giving, suggestion, and learning from others: Pay-What-You-Want experiments at a coffee shop. Journal of behavioral and experimental economics, 66, 16-22.
Regner, T. (2015). Why consumers pay voluntarily: Evidence from online music. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 57, 205-214.
Riener, G., & Traxler, C. (2012). Norms, moods, and free lunch: Longitudinal evidence on payments from a pay-what-you-want restaurant. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 41(4), 476-483.
Roy, R., Rabbanee, F. K., & Sharma, P. (2016). Antecedents, outcomes, and mediating role of internal reference prices in pay-what-you-want (PWYW) pricing. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24(1), 117-136
Schmidt, K. M., Spann, M., & Zeithammer, R. (2015). Pay what you want as a marketing strategy in monopolistic and competitive markets. Management Science, 61(6), 1217-1236.
Soule, C. A. A., & Madrigal, R. (2015). Anchors and norms in anonymous pay-what-you-want pricing contexts. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 57, 167-175.
Spann, M., Zeithammer, R., Bertini, M., Haruvy, E., Jap, S. D., Koenigsberg, O., ... & Thomas, M. (2018). Beyond posted prices: the past, present, and future of participative pricing mechanisms. Customer Needs and Solutions, 5(1-2), 121-136.
Sugden, R., Zheng, J., & Zizzo, D. J. (2013). Not all anchors are created equal. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 21-31.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art (2018), Annual Report for the Year 2017-2018.
The American Museum of Natural History (2018), Annual Report for the Year 2018.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
Wansink, B., Kent, R. J., & Hoch, S. J. (1998). An anchoring and adjustment model of purchase quantity decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 71-81.
