• Dragomir Popov LCC International University
  • Femi Odebiyi LCC International University
Keywords: Pricing strategy, Accommodation sector, Dormitory, Bundle pricing, Partition pricing, Captive market


The purpose of this study is to identify the residents’ preference among three pricing strategies: a la carte pricing strategy, limited choice pricing strategy, and bundled pricing strategy. The study analyzes the correlation between the year of study of the dormitory residents and the preferred pricing strategy. It uses an online survey for LCC International University students who were enrolled for the 2015-2016 academic year. A fixed choice set analysis is performed to analyze 126 valid responses. The results show that 42.4% of the respondents prefer an a la carte pricing strategy, contrary to the currently limited choice pricing strategy employed by LCC residency halls. Additionally, the study finds out that the residents are more likely to switch their preference from a bundled pricing strategy to an a la carte pricing strategy the higher their year of study is. Resident preferences for pricing strategies can provide dormitory operators with valuable information on establishing best pricing structures.


Accommodation. (n.d.). Retrieved September 23, 2015, from

Bambauer, S., & Gierl, H. (2008). Should Marketers Use Price Partitioning or Total Prices?. Advances in Consumer Research, 35, 262-268

Cartwright, E. (2014). Behavioral economics. Routledge.

Duke, C. R. (1994). Matching appropriate pricing strategy with markets and objectives. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 3(2), 15-27.

Heeler, R. M., Nguyen, A., & Buff, C. (2007). Bundles= discount? Revisiting complex theories of bundle effects. Journal of Product & Brand Management,16(7), 492-500.

Johnson, M.D., Herrmann, A. and Bauer, H.H. (1999), “The effects of price bundling on consumer evaluations of product offerings”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 129-142.

Knutsson, E. (2011). Bundling for consumers: Understanding complementarity and its effect on consumers' preferences and satisfaction.

Lockyer T., Roberts L. (2009),"Motel accommodation: trigger points to guest accommodation selection", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 21 Iss 1 pp. 24 – 37

Love E. (2012),"Divide and prosper? When partitioned prices make sense", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol.21 Iss 1 pp. 61 – 67

Naylor, G., & Frank, K. E. (2001). The effect of price bundling on consumer perceptions of value. Journal of Services

Marketing, 15(4), 270-281.

Neumann Hall | (n.d.). Retrieved October 15, 2015, from

Ozdemir B., Çizel B. & Cizel R.B. (2012) Satisfaction With All-Inclusive Tourism Resorts: The Effects of Satisfaction With Destination and Destination Loyalty, International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 13:2, 109-130, DOI:10.1080/15256480.2012.669313

Repetti, T., Roe, S., & Gregory, A. (2015). Pricing strategies for resort fees: consumer preferences favor simplicity. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(5), 790–809.

Roe, S. J., & Repetti, T. (2014). Consumer Perceptions of Resort Fees and Their Impact on Hotel Selection. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 23(5), 564-578.

Sample size calculator. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from

Student Handbook, 2015/2016, 57-57. (2015).

Thaler, R. H. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral decision making, 12(3), 183-206.

Wells, K. (2014, June 8). 10 things all-inclusive vacations won't tell you. Retrieved November 14, 2015, from