The Impact of Brand and Attention on Consumers’ Willingness to Pay: Evidence from an Eye Tracking Experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the field of agricultural economics, willingness to pay (WTP) studies often do not include information regarding the brand of the product. Therefore, we conducted an auction examining consumer WTP for branded and unbranded energy drinks containing different sweeteners. Eye tracking was used to capture the magnitude of attention spent by participants on specific areas of interest regarding the energy drinks in the auction (e.g., brand). Results indicate that attention to brand, package attributes, and product information had a varying impact on WTP depending on the brand examined. Results show that the presence of brand had an impact on WTP for certain brands. Also, as more attention was paid to particular stimuli regarding the energy drinks, individuals were more likely to either increase or decrease their WTP. These results have implications for both marketers of branded food products as well as researchers eliciting consumers’ preferences and WTP values for products that can be branded in the marketplace. Les impacts des marques de commerce et de l'attention du consommateur sur la volonté de payer: les résultats d'une expérience de suivi oculaire. Au sein de l'économie agricole, les études concernant la volonté de payer ne comprennent souvent pas les informations concernant les marques de commerce des produits. Nous avons donc mené une vente aux enchères pour examiner la volonté de payer des consommateurs pour des boissons énergisantes de marque et sans marque. Le suivi oculaire a été utilisé afin de mesurer l'intensité de l'attention des participants sur certains centres d'intérêt concernant les boissons énergisantes disponibles aux enchères (comme la marque). Les résultats démontrent que : l'attention portée à la marque de commerce, aux attributs de l'emballage et aux informations concernant le produit a un impact sur la volonté de payer pour certaines marques. De plus, une augmentation de l'attention pour un stimulus en particulier des boissons énergisantes rendait l'individu plus apte à augmenter ou diminuer sa volonté de payer. Ces résultats ont des répercussions autant pour les spécialistes du marketing des produits alimentaires de marque que pour les chercheurs voulant recueillir les préférences et la volonté de payer des consommateurs pour la commercialisation de produits destinés au marché.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".