"No time to buy": Asking consumers to spend time to save money is perceived as fairer than asking them to spend money to save time.

Firms often ask consumers to either spend time to save money (e.g., Lyft's "Wait & Save") or spend money to save time (e.g., Uber's "Priority Pickup"). Across six preregistered studies (N = 3631), including seven reported in Appendix S1 (N = 2930), we find that asking consumers to spend time to save money is perceived as fairer than asking them to spend money to save time (all else equal), with downstream consequences for word‐of‐mouth, purchase intentions, willingness‐to‐pay (WTP), and incentive‐compatible choice. This is because spend‐time‐to‐save‐money offers reduce concerns about firms' profit‐seeking motives, which consumers find aversive and unfair. The effect is thus mediated by inferences about profit‐seeking and attenuates when concerns about those motives are less salient (e.g., for non‐profits). At the same time, we find that spend‐money‐to‐save‐time offers (e.g., expedited shipping) are more common in the marketplace. This research reveals how normatively equivalent trade‐offs can nevertheless yield contradictory fairness judgments, with meaningful implications for marketing theory and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]