Reverse Pricing and Revenue Sharing in a Vertical Market


 Emil Paul
 1 years ago
 Views:
Transcription
1 Reverse Pricing and Revenue Sharing in a Vertical Market Qihong Liu Jie Shuai January 18, 2014 Abstract Advancing in information technology has empowered firms with unprecedented flexibility when interacting with each other We compare welfare results in a vertical market eg, manufacturers and retailers for several types of pricing strategies depending upon 1 which side retailers or manufacturers chooses retail prices and 2 whether there is revenue sharing or linear pricing between the two sides Our results are as follows Under revenue sharing, retail prices and thus industry profits are higher if and only if they are chosen by the side featuring less competition Under linear pricing, however, retail prices are higher if they are chosen by the side featuring more competition for linear demand functions Relative to linear pricing, revenue sharing always leads to lower retail prices, higher consumer surplus and social surplus However, the comparison on industry profits depends on the demand elasticity ratios Revenue sharing raises industry profits when the elasticity ratios are small, but the results are reversed when the elasticity ratios are large Keywords: Reverse pricing; Revenue sharing; Vertical relationship JEL Classification Codes: D43, L13 We would like to thank the Editor Antony Dnes, two anonymous referees, and Suman Basuroy for very helpful comments and suggestions Department of Economics, University of Oklahoma, 308 Cate Center Drive, Norman, OK Phone: Nankai Institute of Economics, Nankai University, #94 Weijin Rd, Tianjin , PR China 1
2 1 Introduction The advancing of information technology has dramatically changed how various businesses in vertical markets interact with each other Take the bookselling industry for example See also Jerath and Zhang 2010 for more examples such as storewithinastore 1 It used to rely on wholesale pricing model which has two features: 1 publishers choose wholesale prices linear pricing and then 2 booksellers choose retail prices retailer pricing In 2010, Apple introduced its ipad and proposed an agency pricing model which differs from the wholesale pricing model on both features First, there is revenue sharing rather than linear pricing Apple takes 30% of the sales Second, retail prices are set by publishers themselves manufacturer pricing or reverse pricing 2 Information technology has made pricing strategies such as reverse pricing and revenue sharing ever easier to implement, especially when the retail transaction is done online Correspondingly, we would expect such pricing strategies to become more relevant and their welfare implications more important over time The aim of this paper is to analyze and compare these pricing strategies in a vertical market structure where there is competition and product differentiation in both the upstream manufacturers and downstream markets retailers We ask the following questions First, how do the welfare results compare when retail prices are chosen by retailers retailer pricing vs when they are chosen by manufacturers manufacturer pricing or reverse pricing? Second, how do the results under linear pricing compare with those under revenue sharing? We first analyze the issue of which side manufacturers or retailers chooses retail prices Under revenue sharing, we find that retail prices are higher if and only if they are chosen by the side featuring less competition This is because, with revenue sharing, there is competition in only one side of the market whose competition intensity then determines the level of retail prices Ranking of retail prices is always opposite to the ranking of consumer surplus and social surplus, but always the same as the ranking of industry profits Under linear pricing, we find that each side prefers to move first firstmover advantage Due to the sequential game nature, we cannot compare retail prices and industry profits under general demand functions Under linear demand, we find that retail prices are higher if and only if they are chosen by the side featuring more competition, opposite to what we find under revenue sharing The sequential game nature introduces an incomplete pass through effect which leads to higher retail prices if and only if the intermediate prices are higher, ie, the side featuring less competition moves first and retail prices are chosen by the other side featuring more competition Similar to that 1 This example is based on the article What is agency pricing? Wall Street Journal, April 11, This is part of the appeal of the agency pricing model to the publishers, since it allows them to avoid what happened with Amazon who offered many titles below cost to boost its sales of Kindle ereaders at the cost of the publishers sales through other channels 2
3 under revenue sharing, higher retail prices also lead to lower consumer and social surplus However, under linear pricing there is both competition and double marginalization Correspondingly, the competitive prices may be above or below the monopoly price, and higher retail prices may lead to higher or lower industry profits We then analyze the issue of linear pricing vs revenue sharing, assuming that the same side chooses retail prices under either case We find that revenue sharing always leads to lower retail prices relative to linear pricing The intuition is simple There is double marginalization which raises retail prices under linear pricing but not under revenue sharing Lower prices always lead to higher consumer surplus and social surplus However, the comparison for industry profits depends on two demand elasticity ratios: one for competition between manufacturers and the other for competition between retailers see Section 32 for more details Linear pricing lowers industry profit relative to revenue sharing when the two elasticity ratios are sufficiently small, but the result is reversed when the two elasticity ratios are sufficiently large In the special case of linear demand functions, we find that an increase in either elasticity ratio always favors linear pricing over revenue sharing in terms of industry profits 11 Literature review Our paper is related to the extensive literature on vertical relationships 3 The traditional market foreclosure theory focused on the anticompetitive implications of vertical mergers, which was later criticized by authors associated with the Chicago School eg Posner 1976 The postchicago approach eg, Ordover, Saloner and Salop 1990 and Chen 2001 uses modern economic theory to analyze vertical mergers and formally illustrate the welfare implications of vertical mergers With both procompetitive and anticompetitive impacts, the overall effect of vertical mergers on consumer and social welfare can be ambiguous see, for example, Salinger 1988 Within this literature, our paper is mostly related to studies analyzing the potential for vertical mergers to enhance efficiency, in particular, by eliminating double marginalization eg Economides 1999 Our setup allows upstream and downstream firms to rely on revenue sharing so double marginalization can be avoided However, our paper differs from the vertical mergers literature in several perspectives 4 First, revenue sharing is nonexclusive and does not necessarily introduce asymmetric incentives as vertical mergers do For example, a manufacturer would share revenue with all downstream retailers and have no incentive to favor one retailer against another Second, existing studies usually consider either monopoly or homogeneous products in one of the two markets upstream or downstream In contrast, we allow competition and product differentiation in both the upstream and downstream markets 3 See Perry 1989 and Riordan 2005 for two surveys of this literature 4 To some extent, such similarity as well as differences, also exist if one compares this paper with studies on complementary mergers and integration eg, Economides and Salop 1992 and Economides
4 In contrast to the abundance of literature on vertical relationships, little attention has been paid to the issue of which side manufacturers or retailers chooses retail prices An exception is Jerath and Zhang 2010 They consider a setup where a monopoly retailer decides whether to lease space to either of the two competing manufacturers If the retailer leases retail space to a manufacturer storewithinastore, the manufacturer will make its own retail price decision They find that manufacturer pricing can be supported as part of a subgame perfect Nash equilibrium under certain conditions Similar to their paper, we also consider the possibility that retail prices are chosen by manufacturers However, our setup features competition in the retail sector as well and we also consider general demand function For tractability, we focus on the comparative statics manufacturer pricing vs retailer pricing rather than check which one will emerge endogenously in equilibrium 5 We also focus on different issues They are mostly interested in whether the monopoly retailer, with all the bargaining power, has an incentive to lease store space to manufacturers In contrast, we are interested in how the welfare results compare depending on which side chooses retail prices as well as the ranking of competition intensities in the two sides More recent research focuses on contract terms between the manufacturers and the retailers One issue involves vertical restraints such as resale price maintenance RPM eg, Dobson and Waterson 2007 and Asker and BarIsaac 2011 Other issues include the comparisons of linear pricing vs twopart tariff eg, Marx and Shaffer 2007, uniform pricing vs price discrimination Inderst 2010 etc Competition in both upstream and downstream markets, together with general demand functions, prevents us from considering twopart pricing due to the need to calculate the welfare outcomes when the contract offer is declined Since we assume symmetry between the firms in each side of the market, there is no need for price discrimination Correspondingly, we only consider uniform pricing under linear pricing and in the case of revenue sharing, we assume that the contract terms percentage of revenue does not vary across manufacturers or across retailers The rest of the paper is organized as follows We present our model in Section 2 In Section 3, we compare manufacturer pricing with retailer pricing and then compare revenue sharing with linear pricing We conclude in Section 4 Proofs of Lemmas and Propositions are relegated to the Appendix 2 The model We consider a vertical market structure where there is competition in both the upstream and downstream markets In particular, there are two firms in the upstream market called manufactures denoted by j = A, B and two firms in the downstream market called retailers denoted by 5 There are also other differences For example, we rule out instore service which exists and affects the equilibrium outcome in their setup On the other hand, we allow revenue sharing between manufacturers and retailers which is not considered in their paper 4
5 by i = 1, 2 For simplicity, we assume that manufacturers and retailers both have constant marginal cost which we normalize to zero We allow differentiation both across manufacturers and across retailers Combined, there are 4 products offered to consumers: ij {1A, 2A, 1B, 2B} refers to manufacturer j s product sold at retailer i 6 Let p ij denote the price of product ij Demand for product ij is given by D ij D ij p ij, p kj, p il, p kl, i k, j l We assume that demand functions are symmetric and twice differentiable with D ij p ij < 0; > 0, kl ij We further assume that regularity conditions are satisfied so that there exists a pure strategy equilibrium which is also unique in every game we analyze 7 Due to symmetry across retailers and across manufacturers, we focus on symmetric equilibrium throughout the paper Our model features both vertical relationship across markets and horizontal competition within each market There are multiple scenarios in terms of how prices are chosen and revenues are distributed, which we describe next Manufacturers may choose to charge wholesale prices w j followed by retailers choices of retail prices p ij We call this the wholesale pricing scenario W The sequence of move can also be reversed retailers charge reverse wholesale prices rw i to be paid by manufacturers who then choose retail prices p ij We call this the reverse wholesale pricing scenario RW Different from scenarios W or RW which feature linear pricing, manufacturers and retailers may also share revenue with exogenously fixed percentages of revenue going to manufacturers and retailers respectively Under revenue sharing, there are no intermediate prices so only retail prices will be chosen, by either retailers or manufacturers We call them revenue sharing with retailer pricing RSR and revenue sharing with manufacturer pricing RSM respectively These four scenarios are summarized in Table 1 D ij p kl W RW RSR RSM Retail prices chosen by Retailers Manufacturers Retailers Manufacturers Linear pricing Yes Yes No No Table 1: The four scenarios 6 For illustration purpose we use the term manufacturers and retailers It is equivalent to view our setup as 1 a standard upstreamdownstream market where one unit of output from the upstream market is required to produce one unit of output in the downstream market, or 2 a complementary product case where the upstream and downstream products are always consumed in onetoone ratio 7 More details are provided in the Analysis section after firms profit maximization problem is laid out more clearly A specific example where all regularity conditions are satisfied is when demand is linear in prices In that case, we obtain a unique equilibrium which is also symmetric in each scenario 5
6 3 Analysis Recall that the four scenarios differ on potentially two dimensions: 1 which side chooses retail prices; 2 whether there is linear pricing or revenue sharing between the two sides In this section, we will compare these scenarios, two at a time in a pair which differ on one dimension but not the other 31 Which side chooses retail prices? We start by comparing scenarios which differ only on whether retail prices are chosen by manufacturers or retailers Within each pair for comparison, either both scenarios feature revenue sharing or both feature linear pricing We will start with the former 311 Under revenue sharing We first compare revenue sharing with retailer pricing RSR and revenue sharing with manufacturer pricing RSM In both scenarios, manufacturers receive fixed fractions of the total revenue received 8 Let D ij p kj and D ij p il, i k = 1, 2, j l = A, B, evaluated at equal retail prices, denote the competition intensity across retailers and that across manufacturers respectively The comparative statics results turn out to depend on the comparison of these two competition intensities, as summarized in the next Proposition Proposition 1 Revenue sharing Comparing revenue sharing with retailer pricing and revenue sharing with manufacturer pricing, i Retail prices are higher if and only if they are chosen by the side featuring less competition ii Ranking of consumer surplus and social surplus is opposite to the ranking of retail prices iii Ranking of industry profits is always the same as the ranking of retail prices Proof See the Appendix The intuition for the above results is the following Under revenue sharing, there is competition in only one side of the market the side which chooses retail prices To see this, consider RSR for example Retailers choose retail prices to compete with each other However, a retailer, say retailer 1, only cares about the total profit from selling both manufacturers products, not how it is split between them Correspondingly, there is no competition across manufacturers With competition 8 Our focus is on how the scenarios compare with each other, rather than how the industry profit will be split between manufacturers and retailers, or more generally, what scenarios can be supported as part of a subgame perfect Nash equilibrium Nevertheless, our results can provide useful insights for such analysis 6
7 only in the side which chooses retail prices, retail prices are higher if and only if they are chosen by the side featuring less competition With revenue sharing, there is no double marginalization so competition pushes retail prices below the monopoly level which maximizes industry profit Consequently, industry profit goes up if and only if retail prices go up Results for consumer welfare and social welfare are just the opposite We do not consider how manufacturers profits or retailers profits compare across the scenarios With revenue sharing, an increase in industry profit can be divided in a way to make both retailers and manufacturers better off Our results critically depend on the assumption of firm symmetry in each side manufacturers or retailers 9 In particular, rankings of prices and profits depend on the ranking of competition intensities which are defined at the side level and at symmetric prices, the latter naturally stemming from firm symmetry If firms are asymmetric on either of the manufacturer and retailer side, then new measures of competition intensity need to be introduced 312 Under linear pricing Next, we consider two scenarios where firms rely on linear pricing: wholesale pricing W and reverse wholesale pricing RW 10 Under wholesale pricing, manufacturer j = A, B chooses wholesale price w j to maximize its profit, πj W = w j D 1j + D 2j After observing wholesale prices, retailer i = 1, 2 s problem is max π p ia,p i W = p ia w A D ia + p ib w B D ib ib The order of move is the opposite for reverse wholesale pricing RW First, retailer i = 1, 2 chooses reverse wholesale prices rw i to maximizes its profit π RW i = rw i D ia + D ib After observing reverse wholesale prices, manufacturer j = A, B s problem is max p 1j,p 2j π RW j = p 1j rw 1 D 1j + p 2j rw 2 D 2j 9 Except when the degree of firm asymmetry is sufficiently small in which case by continuity our main results under firm symmetry likely would remain valid 10 We assume that firms rely on linear pricing in the absence of revenue sharing, rather than twopart pricing fee plus price With competition in both the upstream and downstream market, it is intractable to derive the optimal fee for the firstmovers under general demand functions In the meantime, we conjecture that the outcomes are likely equivalent to those under revenue sharing, so long as retail prices are chosen by the same side under either case To see this, the optimal intermediate prices would be 0 under twopart pricing so retail prices would be the same under twopart pricing as under revenue sharing 7
8 Next, we introduce regularity conditions which govern how the second movers will respond when firstmovers change their intermediate prices Regularity conditions: Let i, k {1, 2} denote retailers and let j, l {A, B} denote manufacturers We impose the following assumptions on profit functions 2 π W i p 2 ij < 0; 2 π W i p ij w j + 2 π W i p ij w l < 2 π RW j p ij p kl > kl 2 π RW j p 2 ij < 0; 2 π W i p ij p kl > 0, kl ij; 2 π W i p ij p kl ; kl 2 π RW j p ij rw i + 2 πi W p 2 ij 2 π W i p ij p il + 2 π RW j p ij p kl > 0, kl ij; 2 π RW j p ij rw k ; 2 πj RW p 2 ij kl 2 π W i p ij p kl < 0, kl; πi W p ij p kj > 2 πi W p ij p kl kl 2 π W i p ij w j, k i, l j 2 2 πi W p il w j 2 π RW j p ij p kl < 0, kl πj RW p ij p il 2 πj RW p ij p kj + 2 π RW j p ij p kl > 2 π RW j p ij rw i, k i, l j 4 2 πj RW p kj rw i Equations 1 and 2 are for wholesale pricing while equations 3 and 4 are for reverse wholesale pricing Let us focus on wholesale pricing Conditions in 1 are standard Profit is concave in own price but convex in cross prices An equal increase in all prices is less profitable for firm i, the higher p ij is Conditions in 2 require more explanation Let us see what they do Retailer 1 s firstorder conditions are π 1 p 1j = 0, j = A, B Next, suppose that w A changes by dw A while w B remains fixed dw B = 0 Taking total differentials to the firstorder conditions and then imposing symmetry dp ij = dp kj, we can obtain 2 π 1 2 π 1 dp 1A + dp 1B = 2 π 1 dw A, 5 p 2B p 2 1A 2 π 1 dp 1A + p 2 1B dp 1B = 2 π 1 dw A 6 p 2B The coefficients in parentheses are c 1 and c 2 in 5, and c 2 and c 1 in 6 evaluated at equal prices where c 1 = 2 π 1 p 2, c 2 = 2 π 1 1A p 2B 8
9 Solving these two equations for p 1j, we can obtain = c 1 D1A c 2 c 2 1, c2 2 = c 2 D1A + c 1 c 2 1 c2 2 Conditions in 2, together with those in 1 will allow us to pin down the range of p 1j shown in the next Lemma as Lemma 1 Under the regularity conditions 14, 1 > p ij hold under wholesale pricing and 1 > wholesale pricing p ij rw i > p kj rw i w j > p il w j > 0 l j = A, B must > 0 k i = 1, 2 must hold under reverse Proof See the Appendix It is intuitive that an increase in w A raises p 1A, ie, > 0 How about? It turns out that dw A has two opposite effects on dp 1B First, substituting dp 1A = 0 into equation 5, we can obtain the direct effect 11 = direct 2 π 1 p 2B < 0 That is, the direct effect says that an increase in w A leads to a reduction in p 1B The indirect effect is that a change in w A affects p ia which in turn affects p 1B It takes the form of = > 0 indirect Substituting dw A = 0 into equation 5, we can obtain = p 2 p 1A 1A p 2B > 0 holds if and only if the indifferent effect dominates the direct effect Summing up the direct and indirect effects, we recover the earlier result that = c 2 D1A + c 1 c 2 1 c One can use either equation 5 or 6 Later on both equations are used when we substitute the expression 9
10 In the case of linear demand functions, it can be shown that p 2 1A > p 2B > p 2B, which always holds since > 0 and p 2B < 0 What ensures that < 1? The relevant condition by substituting i = 1, j = A into the first condition in equation 2 is 2 π W π W 1 w B < 2 π W 1 p kl The lefthand side measures how much a unit increase in w A and w B will impact π 1 12 The righthand side measures how much a unit increase in all p ij will impact π 1 Note that these two impacts must exactly offset each other since π 1 = 0 holds both before and after the changes in w A and p ij Correspondingly, their relative sizes determine how dp 1A compares with dw A kl One can also substitute the π W 1 expression and transform the above inequality into the following: ij p ij < p 1A w A ij 2 D 1A p ij p 1B w B ij 2 D 1B p ij In the case of linear demand functions, the righthand side is zero and the condition becomes ij p ij < 0 That is, demand goes down when all prices go up by the same amount Comparison for each side Next, we analyze how the two sides would rank the two scenarios In particular, we check whether there is a first mover advantage The answer is yes as shown in the next Proposition Proposition 2 Under linear pricing, each side manufacturers or retailers prefers to be the first mover Proof See the Appendix Recall that the first movers intermediate prices are the secondmovers marginal costs Based on Lemma 1, when the second movers face higher costs, they will raise retail prices but not by as much as the cost increases This makes the demand less elastic for the first movers who would then 12 Here we allow both w A and w B to change Let dw A = dw B = dw, we show that dp 1A < 1 See the proof for more details dw < 1 which then implies 10
11 have an incentive to raise their intermediate prices and force the second mover to absorb part of the price increases Doing so benefits the first movers at the cost of the second movers Consequently, each side would prefer to be the first mover Comparison on retail prices and industry profits Next, we compare the final retail prices and overall industry profits across the two scenarios: W and RW Because of the sequential game nature, under general demand functions we cannot obtain explicit solutions for the equilibrium which are required for us to compare retail prices and industry profits Consequently, we employ specific demand functions which we assume to be linear in retail prices, D ij = 1 p ij + a R p kj + a M p il + a RM p kl, k i = 1, 2, l j = A, B 7 Note that a R > 0 captures the competition intensity across the same product sold at different retailers On the other hand, a M > 0 captures the competition intensity across different products sold at the same retailer a RM < min{a R, a M } captures the competition intensity across different products sold at different retailers For simplicity we assume that a RM = a R a M Regularity conditions in 2 require that a R + a M + a RM < 1, ie, an equal increase in all retail prices leads to lower demand for all products The comparative statics on retail prices and industry profits are summarized in the next Proposition Proposition 3 Linear demand Comparing wholesale pricing W and reverse wholesale pricing RW, i Retail prices are higher if and only if they are chosen by the side featuring more competition ii Ranking of consumer welfare and social welfare is always opposite to the ranking of retail prices iii Ranking of industry profits is independent of the ranking of retail prices Proof See the Appendix The intuition for the results in Proposition 3i is the following In both wholesale pricing and reverse wholesale pricing, final retail prices are determined by: 1 competition intensity across manufacturers; 2 competition intensity across retailers and 3 the ability of the second movers to absorb high prices chosen by the first movers 1 and 2 are the same across wholesale pricing and reverse wholesale pricing 3 exists because the first movers do not sell directly to consumers but to second movers instead The second movers will pass only a fraction of the intermediate price increases down to consumers and absorb the rest, incomplete pass through Second movers ability 11
12 for such absorption decreases with their costs ie, the intermediate prices In particular, when intermediate prices are high, the second movers have little room to absorb increase in intermediate prices and will pass most of the increase down to consumers Therefore, high intermediate prices raise final retail prices through two channels: by raising second movers costs and by reducing second movers ability to absorb higher wholesale prices Combined, retail prices are higher if the side featuring less competition moves first higher intermediate prices Note that the ranking of retail prices under linear pricing in Proposition 3i is opposite to the ranking under revenue sharing in Proposition 1i In particular, under revenue sharing, retail prices are higher if chosen by the side featuring less competition On the other hand, under linear pricing, retail prices are lower if chosen by the side featuring less competition The ranking of industry profit across W and RW is independent of the ranking of retail prices In particular, an increase in retail prices does not necessarily imply that industry profit will go up From the perspective that retail prices are competitive prices, they are too low compared to monopoly price But there is also double marginalization so retail prices can be too high Combined, how retail prices compare with monopoly price is ambiguous and would depend on how competition effect and double marginalization effect compare with each other 32 Revenue sharing vs linear pricing In the previous subsection, we have compared the welfare results depending on which side chooses retail prices Next, we have the same side choosing retail prices and focus on the comparison between revenue sharing and linear pricing We will compare wholesale pricing W with revenue sharing retailer pricing RSR, and compare reverse wholesale pricing RW with revenue sharing manufacturer pricing RSM Our goal is to analyze how the presence or absence of double marginalization affects consumer surplus, industry profits and social surplus We will start with the comparison of retail prices Let p s denote the equilibrium retail price under scenario s {W, RW, RSR, RSM} The results are presented in the next Proposition Proposition 4 When retail prices are chosen by the same side, revenue sharing always leads to lower retailer prices, relative to linear pricing That is p W > p RSR, p RW > p RSM Results in Proposition 4 are straightforward applications of Lemma 1 Note that p W is retailers best response to wholesale price of w > 0, while p RSR is their best response to hypothetical wholesale price of 0 Based on Lemma 1, we immediately get p W > p RSR The proof for p RW > p RSM is similar 12
13 While linear pricing always leads to higher retail prices relative to revenue sharing, it is no guarantee that it entails higher industry profits as well Consider the scenarios W vs RSR Let p M denote the monopoly retail price which maximizes industry profit While p RSR < p M always holds, the comparison of p W and p M is ambiguous Exante it is unclear whether p M is closer to p W or p RSR Next, we define two demand elasticity ratios: D 1B / across manufacturers and D 2A / across retailers respectively, both evaluated at equal retail prices pij = p 13 These two elasticity ratios will help determine the comparison of profits across linear pricing and revenue sharing, as summarized in the next Proposition Proposition 5 When elasticity ratios are sufficiently small, linear pricing entails lower industry profit relative to revenue sharing, that is, Π W < Π RSR, Π RW < Π RSM The rankings are reversed when elasticity ratios are sufficiently large Proof See the Appendix Let us focus on the scenarios where retail prices are chosen by retailers W for linear pricing and RSR for revenue sharing to illustrate the ideas Previously we have explained that p RSR < p M always holds while the comparison of p W and p M is ambiguous Let us start with the extreme case where the elasticity ratios are zero, ie, all cross partial derivatives of demand with respect to prices are zero In this case, there is no competition effect and we have p RSR = p M < p W This implies Π RSR = Π M > Π W By continuity the same result Π RSR > Π W would hold when the elasticity ratios are sufficiently small On the other hand, when the elasticity ratios are large enough, the competition effect dominates the double marginalization effect We would have p RSR < p W < p M, implying that Π RSR < Π W < Π M An example of linear demand With general demand functions, we can compare profits only for the extreme cases: when elasticity ratios are either sufficiently small or sufficiently large Next, we consider specific demand functions and explore the whole ranges of elasticity ratios We revisit the linear demand function as given in equation 7, D ij = 1 p ij + a R p kj + a M p il + a RM p kl, k i, l j 13 It is straightforward to verify that evaluated at equal prices, these partial derivative ratios are equivalent to the elasticity ratios For example, D 1B / = D 1B / D 1B p 1A / D 1A p 1A since p 1A = p 1B and D 1A = D 1B 13
14 Since D ij p ij = 1, the two elasticity ratios become ar and a M respectively Without loss of generality, we compare the scenarios W and RSR 14 The results are in the same spirit as those in Proposition 5 In particular, we find that Π RSR Π W decreases with a M and a R This implies that there is unique level curve of a R, a M combinations such that Π RSR = Π W See Figure 1 Industry profit is higher under revenue sharing below the curve, but is higher under linear pricing above the curve W RSR Π >Π RSR W Π >Π Figure 1: Industry profit comparison: Revenue sharing vs Linear pricing 4 Conclusion This paper investigates vertical relationship where there is competition and product differentiation in both the upstream and downstream market We compare the welfare results under several types of pricing strategies depending upon which side manufacturers or retailers chooses retail prices and whether there is linear pricing or revenue sharing between the two sides Under revenue sharing, retail prices are higher if they are chosen by the side featuring less competition Under linear pricing, each side prefers to be the first mover but different from revenue sharing, retail prices are higher if they are chosen by the side featuring more competition under linear demand Higher retails prices always translate into higher industry profits under revenue sharing, but may lead to higher or lower industry profits under linear pricing Comparing linear pricing and revenue sharing, 14 If one switches a M and a R, then scenarios W and RSR under the new parameters become scenarios RW and RSM under the initial parameters 14
15 we find that revenue sharing always generates lower retail prices, but the comparison of industry profits depends on the two demand elasticity ratios in the upstream and downstream markets Revenue sharing leads to larger industry profits when the elasticity ratios are small but the result is opposite when elasticity ratios are large Appendix Proof of Proposition 1 i Let us start with RSR Retailer i = 1, 2 chooses p ia and p ib to maximize its share of profit, which is equivalent to maximizing the overall profit Retailer 1 s problem is max p 1A D 1A + p 1B D 1B p 1A,p 1B FOC implies that D 1A + p 1A + p 1B D 1B = 0 8 Note that competition intensity between manufacturers D ib p ia, i = 1, 2 enters into the FOC and is internalized On the other hand, competition intensity between retailers D 1j p 2j, j = A, B does not and it will determine the equilibrium level of retail prices Imposing symmetry all retail prices are equal and denoted as p RSR, we have p RSR = D1A D 1A + D 1B Note that < 0, increases with D 1B D 1B > 0 and + D 1B < 0 It can be easily verified that p RSR is Next, we consider RSM where manufacturers choose retail prices Manufacturer A s problem max p 1A D 1A + p 2A D 2A p 1A,p 2A FOC implies that D 1A + p 1A + p 2A D 2A = 0 9 Imposing symmetry, we have p RSM = D1A D 1A + D 2A 15
16 Note that with D 2A < 0, D 2A > 0 and + D 2A < 0 It can be verified that p RSM increases Next, we compare p RSR and p RSM If D 1B = D 2A, we must have p RSR = p RSM Moreover, p RSR increases with D 1B and p RSM increases with D 2A D 2A > D 1B to have D 2A Combined, p RSM > p RSR if and only if holds at either p ij = p RSR i, j or p ij = p RSM i, j A sufficient condition is > D 1B at all equal retail prices ii With zero cost of production, rankings for consumer welfare and social welfare are always opposite to the ranking of retail prices iii It can be easily verified that the monopoly price which maximizes industry profit is p M = + D 1B D 1A + D 2A + D 2B, It is easy to see that max{p RSR, p RSM } < p M, which further implies that higher retail prices would lead to higher industry profits Proof of Lemma 1 Wholesale pricing Recall that = c 1 D1A c 2 c 2 1, c2 2 = c 2 D1A + c 1 c 2 1, c2 2 where Note that c 1 = 2 π 1 p 2, c 2 = 2 π 1 1A p 2B 2 π 1 = < 0, 2 π 1 = > 0 Next, we show that 1 > i p 1j > 0, j = A, B > > 0 16
17 Since c 1 < 0, c 2 > 0, c 1 + c 2 < 0, From the regularity conditions, we have p 2 1A < 0, > p 2B > 0, = > 0 must hold The numerator in the expression must be positive, so > 0 ii > This is because = c 1 + c 2 D1A c 2 1 c2 2 > 0 iii < 1 We have shown p ij > 0 Similar conditions will ensure p ij w B > 0 Next, restrict dw A = dw B = dw which leads to dp 1A = dp 1B = dp 2A = dp 2B 15 Taking total differentials to π 1 π1 dp ij + p ij ij ij p ij = 0, we can obtain π1 dw A + π1 w B dw B = 0 dp 1A = w B dw dp 1A dw < 1 if and only if w B < p ij, 10 ij which is established in our regularity conditions Combined with dp 1A dw >, < 1 must hold Reverse wholesale pricing The idea of this proof is very similar to that for wholesale pricing We present it here for the sake of completeness 15 Note that the corresponding dp 1A must be larger than the dp 1A when only w A changes This is because dp 1A + w B > 17 dw =
18 We solve the game backwards In the second stage, manufacturer A maximizes its profit: π A = p 1A rw 1 D 1A + p 2A rw 2 D 2A Firstorder conditions imply π A = 0, π A = 0 Due to symmetry, we will impose drw 2 = 0 and look at to the firstorder conditions, we can obtain πa dp ij + p ij ij ij πa p ij dp ij + πa dp ij drw 1 rw 1 drw 1 = 0, πa rw 1 drw 1 = 0 only Taking total differentials We further impose symmetry in the form of dp ij = dp il, i = 1, 2 The previous two equations then become 2 π A p 2 1A + 2 π A dp1a 2 drw 1 + π A + 2 π A p 2B dp2a 2 π A drw 1 =, 11 rw 1 2 π A + 2 π A dp1a 2 drw 1 + π A p π A dp2a 2A p 2B drw 1 = 2 π A 12 rw 1 Note that 2 π A rw 1 = < 0, 2 π A rw 1 = > 0 Step 1: Derive the rw 1 and rw 1 expressions Written in matrix form, equations 11 and 12 become d 1 d 2 d 2 d 1 p1a rw 1 rw 1 = D1A, where d 1 = 2 π A p 2 1A + 2 π A, d 2 = 2 π A + 2 π A p 2B 18
19 From the regularity conditions, equation 1, we have d 1 < 0, d 2 > 0, d 1 + d 2 < 0 They then imply d 2 1 d2 2 > 0 We can then obtain p1a rw 1 rw 1 = 1 d 2 1 d2 2 d 1 d 2 d 2 d 1 D1A That is, rw 1 = d 1 D1A d 2 d 2 1, d2 2 rw 1 = d 2 D1A + d 1 d 2 1, d2 2 Step 2: Show that 1 > rw 1 > rw 1 > 0 i rw 1 > 0 Since d 1 < 0, d 2 > 0, d 1 + d 2 < 0, From the regularity conditions, we have 2 π A p 2 1A 2 π A + < 0 and > 0, + 2 π A > 2 π A p 2B rw 1 > 0 must hold The numerator in the ii iii rw 1 rw 1 > dp 2A drw 1 This is because rw 1 expression must be positive, so p rw 1 = d 1 + d 2 D1A d 2 1 d2 2 rw 1 < 1: Taking total differentials to π A ij πa p ij dp ij + πa rw 1 drw 1 + 2A rw 1 > 0 > 0 = 0, we can obtain πa rw 2 drw 2 = 0 Next, we restrict drw 1 = drw 2 = drw 16 It must be dp 1A = dp 2A Then we have the following: 2 π A + 2 π A 2 π A dp 1A π A 2 π A dp 2A = + 2 π A drw, p 2B rw 1 rw 2 p 2 1A 16 As we have shown that dp 1j drw 1 > 0, the corresponding dp1a must be larger than the dp1a when only rw1 changes 19
20 2 π A p π A + 2 π A + 2 π A 2 π A dp 1A = + 2 π A drw 1A p 2B rw 1 rw 2 dp 1A < drw if and only if 2 π A + 2 π A < 2 π A rw 1 rw 2 p ij, which is established in our regularity conditions Under linear demand functions, this condition is equivalent to a R + a M + a RM < 1 ij Proof of Proposition 2 We will introduce a hypothetical scenario where all manufacturers and retailers choose their component prices simultaneously We consider a symmetric equilibrium Let p M and p R denote the manufacturer and retailer component prices and let p p M + p R the final retail price Let and π M and π R denote the corresponding manufacturer profit and retailer profit respectively Similarly let p s, πm s and πs R denote the equilibrium retail price, manufacturer profit and retailer profit under scenario s = W, RW Let w denote the optimal wholesale price and rw the optimal reverse wholesale price respectively Step 1: Show that w > p M > p RW rw, rw > p R > p W w We first show that w > p M Due to symmetry, consider manufacturer A only Under the wholesale pricing scenario, its profit is πa W = w A D 1A + D 2A Firstorder condition implies πa W D1A = D 1A + D 2A + w A + D 2A = 0 We only consider symmetric equilibrium D 2A = D 1A and D 2A = Then, D 1A + w A = 0 w = w A = D 1A 13 Under the hypothetical scenario, manufacturer A s profit is π A = p MA D 1A + D 2A 20
21 Firstorder condition implies π A p MA = D 1A + D 2A + p MA Note that p MA enters into p 1A and p 2A, so Imposing symmetry, we have, p MA = + D 1A + p MA p MA = 0 D1A + D 2A = 0 p MA p MA p M = p MA = Comparing equations 13 and 14, w > p M if and only if D1A > + D 1A It holds because D 1A = p 2B D1A = + D 1A p 1A D1A + + D 1A p 2B > D1A + > +, the second term is positive + 14 p 2B since + < 0 and 0, 1 Next, we prove that p M > p RW rw We have shown that under wholesale pricing, first movers raise their component prices beyond the level under simultaneous move The same holds for reverse wholesale pricing so rw > p R Going from the hypothetical scenario to the reverse wholesale pricing scenario, retailer component price goes up from p R to rw Based on Lemma 1, final retail price should go up from p to p RW but by not as much, That is, p RW p < rw p R p RW rw < p p R p RW rw < p M Combined, we have w > p MA > p RW rw The proof of rw > p R > p W w is similar and skipped 21
22 Step 2: Show that π W M > π M > π RW M and πw R < π R < π RW R First, we show that π M > πm RW Relative to the hypothetical scenario, under RW manufacturers choose higher retail prices p RW > p so lower sales In the mean time, manufacturers pricecost margin goes down since p RW rw < p p R Combined, manufacturers must be worse off under reverse wholesale pricing relative to the hypothetical scenario π M > π RW M Next, we show that π W M > π M Let π A w A, w B denote manufacturer A s profit when manufacturers wholesale prices are w A and w B under wholesale pricing Then π W M = π A w, w π A p M, w w A = w is bestresponse to w B = w > π A p M, p M w > p M = π M p R is the bestresponse to p M So far we have established that πm W > π M > πm RW Following similar steps, it can be verified that πr W < π R < πr RW Therefore, each side always prefers to be the firstmover Proof of Proposition 3 i Prove that retail prices are higher if and only if they are chosen by the side featuring more competition Recall that demand for manufacturer j s product at retailer i is given by D ij = 1 p ij + a R p kj + a M p il + a RM p kl, i k = 1, 2, j l = A, B, where min{a R, a M, a RM } > 0, a RM = a R a M and a R + a M + a RM < 1 We will start with wholesale pricing and solve the game backwards In Stage 2, retailer s profits are given by Solving the firstorder conditions π i p ij π 1 = p 1A w A D 1A + p 1B w B D 1B, π 2 = p 2A w A D 2A + p 2B w B D 2B = 0, we can obtain p 1A = 2 2a M a R a M 2w A + a R + a R w A 2a R a M w B + 2a 2 M w A + a 2 M a Rw A a 2 R + a2 R a2 M + 4a Ra 2 M + 4a R + 4a 2 M 4, p 1B = a Ra M 2 + a R + a R a 2 M w B + a R w B 2a R a M w A + 2a 2 M w B 2a M 2w B a 2 R + a2 R a2 M + 4a Ra 2 M + 4a R + 4a 2 M 4, 22
23 p 2A = 2 2a M a R a M 2w A + a R + a R w A 2a R a M w B + 2a 2 M w A + a 2 M a Rw A a 2 R + a2 R a2 M + 4a Ra 2 M + 4a R + 4a 2 M 4, p 2B = a Ra M 2 + a R + a R a 2 M w B + a R w B 2a R a M w A + 2a 2 M w B 2a M 2w B a 2 R + a2 R a2 M + 4a Ra 2 M + 4a R + 4a 2 M 4 In stage 1, manufacturers profits are π A = w A D 1A + D 2A, π B = w B D 1B + D 2B Substituting p ij into π j and solving for manufacturers firstorder conditions, we can obtain the following wholesale prices w A = w B 2 2a R a M + a R a 2 M = + 2a2 M + a R a 3 M a2 R 2a2 R a2 M a2 R a M + 2a 2 R + 3a3 M a R 2a R a 2 M + a Ra M 6a R + 2a 3 M 4a2 M 2a M + 4 Substituting the optimal w j into p ij, we can obtain the equilibrium p ij = p W as the following p W 1 = a R a M + 2a M 2 + a R 4a3 M + 4a Ra 3 M + a3 M a2 R 2a2 R a2 M 5a Ra 2 M 6a2 M + 4a Ra M 4a M a 2 R a M + 2a 2 R 7a R + 6 a 3 M a2 R + 3a Ra 3 M + 2a3 M 4a2 M 2a Ra 2 M 2a2 R a2 M a2 R a M + a R a M 2a M + 4 6a R + 2a 2 R For reverse wholesale pricing, following similar steps we can obtain the following equilibrium reverse wholesale prices rw 1 = rw a M + 2a 2 R = + a2 R a M 2a R a M a 3 R a2 M + 3a3 R a M + 2a 3 R 4a2 R 2a2 R a M 2a 2 R a2 M a Ra 2 M + a Ra M 2a R + 4 6a M + 2a 2, M which lead to the following equilibrium retail price: p RW 1 = 2a R + a R a M 2 + a M ar 3 a 2 M + 4a 3 R a M + 4a 3 R 2a2 R a2 M 5a2 R a M 6a 2 R + 4a Ra M 4a R a R a 2 M + 2a2 M 7a M + 6 a 3 R a2 M + 3a3 R a M + 2a 3 R 2a2 R a M 4a 2 R 2a2 R a2 M a Ra 2 M + a Ra M 2a R + 4 6a M + 2a 2 M We then calculate p W p RW and find that it is a multiple of and has the same sign as a R a M With = a R and = a M, it must be that p W > p RW > 23
24 ii It is obvious that an increase in retail prices lowers both consumer surplus and social surplus Correspondingly, the ranking of consumer welfare and social welfare is always opposite to the ranking of retail prices iii An increase in retail price may raise or lower industry profit, as illustrated in the following examples: 1 a R = 035, a M = 03: p W > p RW and Π W > Π RW 2 a R = 035, a M = 015: p W > p RW but Π W < Π RW Proof of Proposition 5 Elasticity ratios are small Suppose that the elasticity ratios are zero, ie, all cross partial derivatives of demand with respect to prices are zero In this case, there is no competition so RSR would lead to the same equilibrium retail price as the monopoly price However, double marginalization remains if firms rely on linear pricing Combined, we have p RSR = p M < p W, which then leads to Π RSR = Π M > Π W That is, when there is no competition across retailers or manufacturers, RSR leads to higher industry profit relative to W By continuity, the results would hold when there is sufficiently weak competition Elasticity ratios are large Relative to monopoly price p M, p W captures two effects: double marginalization effect which pushes p W beyond p M, and competition effect which lowers p W below p M Next, suppose that competition intensity is very strong across manufacturers and across retailers Correspondingly, under wholesale pricing, both manufacturers and retailers can charge prices only slightly above their marginal cost This implies that competition effect dominates the double marginalization effect and we have p W < p M Recall that p RSR captures competition effect but not double marginalization effect It must be p RSR < p W < p M, which further implies Π RSR < Π W < Π M 24
25 References Asker, J and H BarIsaac 2011 Exclusion due to RPM, Slotting Fees, Loyalty Rebates and other Vertical Practices, Working paper Chen, Y 2001 On vertical mergers and their competitive effects, RAND Journal of Economics, Vol 32, No 4, pp Dobson, P and M Waterson 2007 The competition effects of industrywide vertical price fixing in bilateral oligopoly, International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol 25, No 5, pp Economides, N 1999 Quality choice and vertical integration, International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol 17, No 6, pp The incentive for vertical integration, Working paper Economides, N and S C Salop 1992 Competition and integration among complements, and network market structure, Journal of Industrial Economics, pp Inderst, R 2010 Models of vertical market relations, International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol 28, No 4, pp Jerath, K and J Zhang 2010 Store within a store, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol 47, No 4, pp Marx, L M and G Shaffer 2007 Upfront payments and exclusion in downstream markets, The RAND Journal of Economics, Vol 38, No 3, pp Ordover, J A, G Saloner, and S C Salop 1990 Equilibrium vertical foreclosure, American Economic Review, Vol 80, No 1, pp Perry, M 1989 Vertical Integration: Determinants and Effects, in R Schmalensee and R Willigs eds Handbook of Industrial Organization, Amsterdam: NorthHolland Posner, R 1976 Antitrust Law: An Antitrust Perspective, Chicago: University of Chicago Press Riordan, M 2005 Competitive effects of vertical integration, Working paper Salinger, M 1988 Vertical mergers and market foreclosure, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol 103, No 2, pp
Price Discrimination with Varying Qualities of Information
Price Discrimination with Varying Qualities of Information Qihong Liu Jie Shuai March 6, 2014 Abstract We analyze the welfare impacts of price discrimination in a twodimensional spatial differentiation
More informationChihChen Liu and Leonard F.S. Wang *
Forthcoming in Economics Letters Leading Merger in a Stackelberg Oligopoly: Profitability and Consumer Welfare ChihChen Liu and Leonard F.S. Wang * Department of Applied Economics, National University
More informationCountervailing Power and Product Diversity
Countervailing Power and Product Diversity by Zhiqi Chen Carleton University Work in Progress December 6, 2003 Abstract To analyse the effects of countervailing power on product variety, I construct a
More informationOn the mode of Competition as a Collusive Perspective in Unionized Oligopoly
On the mode of Competition as a Collusive Perspective in Unionized Oligopoly Minas Vlassis * Maria Varvataki Department of Economics, University of Crete, Gallos University Campus, Rethymnon 74100, Greece
More informationKey words: Franchise Fees, Competition, Double Marginalization, Collusion
The Role of Franchise Fees and Manufacturers Collusion DongJoon Lee (Nagoya University of Commerce and Business, Japan) Sanghoen Han (Nagoya University of Commerce and Business, Japan) Abstract: This paper
More information1 Double Marginalization & Two Part Tariff
ECON 312: Vertical Relations 1 Industrial Organization Vertical Relations Vertical Relations refers to the relationship between two firms in the sequence along the value chain, where there is an upstream
More informationStrategic Choice of Channel Structure in an Oligopoly
Strategic Choice of Channel Structure in an Oligopoly Lin Liu Marshal School of Management University of Southern California X. Henry Wang Department of Economics University of MissouriColumbia and Bill
More informationThe Role of Price Floor in a Differentiated Product Retail Market 1
The Role of Price Floor in a Differentiated Product Retail Market 1 Barna Bakó 2 Corvinus University of Budapest Hungary 1 I would like to thank the anonymous referee for the valuable comments and suggestions,
More informationPrice Discrimination and Investment Incentives
Price Discrimination and Investment Incentives Alexei Alexandrov and Joyee Deb University of Rochester and New York University March 12, 2010 Abstract We examine a model of a monopolist supplier selling
More informationSocial responsibility in a bilateral monopoly with R&D
MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive Social responsibility in a bilateral monopoly with R&D Arturo Garcia and Mariel Leal and SangHo Lee Technologico de Monterrey, Mexico, Technologico de Monterrey, Mexico,
More informationIndustrial Organization 04
Industrial Organization 04 Product differentiation Marc Bourreau Telecom ParisTech Marc Bourreau (TPT) Lecture 04: Product differentiation 1 / 43 Outline 1 Introduction: forms of product differentiation
More informationIntroduction to special issue on negotiations and cooperative arrangements in industrial organization: Models and applications
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com International Journal of Industrial Organization 25 (2007) 879 883 www.elsevier.com/locate/econbase Introduction to special issue on negotiations and cooperative
More informationEC Lecture 11&12. Vertical Restraints and Vertical Mergers
EC 36  Lecture 11&1 Vertical Restraints and Vertical Mergers What are vertical restraints? In most markets producers do not sell directly to consumers but to retailers who then sell to consumers. Some
More informationUniform and Targeted Advertising with Shoppers and. Asymmetric Loyal Market Shares
Uniform and Targeted dvertising with Shoppers and symmetric Loyal Market Shares Michael rnold, Chenguang Li and Lan Zhang October 9, 2012 Preliminary and Incomplete Keywords: informative advertising, targeted
More informationConsumer Conformity and Vanity in Vertically Differentiated Markets
Consumer Conformity and Vanity in Vertically Differentiated Markets Hend Ghazzai Assistant Professor College of Business and Economics Qatar University P.O. Box 2713 Doha, Qatar. Abstract Consumers' choice
More informationVertical Integration and Competition Policy
January 24, 2001 Vertical Integration and ompetition Policy Jonas Häckner + Department of Economics, Stockholm University S106 91 Stockholm, Sweden + Phone: +468163049 Fax: +468159482 Email: jonas.hackner@ne.su.se
More informationEcon 121b: Intermediate Microeconomics
Econ 11b: Intermediate Microeconomics Dirk Bergemann, Spring 01 Week of 3/64/3 1 Lecture 16: Imperfectly Competitive Market 1.1 Price Discrimination In the previous section we saw that the monopolist
More informationEcon Microeconomic Analysis and Policy
ECON 500 Microeconomic Theory Econ 500  Microeconomic Analysis and Policy Monopoly Monopoly A monopoly is a single firm that serves an entire market and faces the market demand curve for its output. Unlike
More informationUC Berkeley Haas School of Business Economic Analysis for Business Decisions (EWMBA 201A)
UC Berkeley Haas School of Business Economic Analysis for Business Decisions (EWMBA 201A) Monopoly and oligopoly (PR 11.111.4 and 12.212.5) Advanced pricing with market power and equilibrium oligopolistic
More informationShelf Space Fees and InterBrand Competition
No. E00800 008 Shelf Space Fees and InterBrand Competition Hao Wang * China Center for Economic Research (CCER) National School of Development Peking University, China NO. E00800 December, 008 * Correspondence
More informationDoes it Pay to be First? Sequential Locational Choice and Foreclosure*
Does it Pay to be First? Sequential Locational Choice and Foreclosure* by Nicholas Economides,** Jamie Howell, and Sergio Meza** This version: August 2002 Abstract We analyze the sequential choices of
More informationUC Berkeley Haas School of Business Economic Analysis for Business Decisions (EWMBA 201A) Fall 2013
UC Berkeley Haas School of Business Economic Analysis for Business Decisions (EWMBA 201A) Fall 2013 Pricing with market power and oligopolistic markets (PR 11.111.4 and 12.212.5) Module 4 Sep. 28, 2013
More informationVertical Contracting Between Airlines: An Equilibrium Analysis of Codeshare Alliances
Vertical Contracting Between Airlines: An Equilibrium Analysis of Codeshare Alliances Yongmin Chen University of Colorado at Boulder Philip G. Gayle Kansas State University ecember 2006 Abstract This paper
More informationTheory Appendix. 1 Model Setup
Theory Appendix In this appendix, we provide a stylized model based on our empirical setting to analyze the effect of competition on author behavior. The general idea is that in a market with imperfect
More informationTechnology Adoption in a Differentiated Duopoly: Cournot versus Bertrand
WP2009001 Technology Adoption in a Differentiated Duopoly: Cournot versus Bertrand Rupayan Pal Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai January 2009 http://www.igidr.ac.in/pdf/publication/wp2009001.pdf
More informationJournal of Industrial Organization Education. ThirdDegree Price Discrimination
An Article Submitted to Journal of Industrial Organization Education Manuscript 1030 ThirdDegree Price Discrimination Qihong Liu Konstantinos Serfes University of Oklahoma, qliu@ou.edu Drexel University,
More informationVERTICAL INTEGRATION, MARKET FORECLOSURE AND QUALITY INVESTMENT * Roberto Hernan 1 and Praveen Kujal 2
Working Paper 0614 Economics Series 05 February 2006 Departamento de Economía Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Calle Madrid, 126 28903 Getafe (Spain) Fax (34) 91 624 98 75 VERTICAL INTEGRATION, MARKET
More informationChapter 9: Static Games and Cournot Competition
Chapter 9: Static Games and Cournot Competition Learning Objectives: Students should learn to:. The student will understand the ideas of strategic interdependence and reasoning strategically and be able
More informationSlotting Allowances and Retail Product Variety under Oligopoly
Slotting Allowances and Retail Product Variety under Oligopoly Stephen Hamilton and Robert Innes June 2017 Abstract Slotting fees are lumpsum charges paid by manufacturers to retailers for shelf space.
More informationUsing Bill and Keep Interconnect Arrangements to Soften Network Competition
Using Bill and Keep Interconnect Arrangements to Soften Network Competition by Joshua S. Gans and Stephen P. King University of Melbourne 0 th March, 000 This paper demonstrates that low (below marginal
More informationIndustrial Organization
Industrial Organization Session 7: Concentration, Mergers, and Entry Barriers Jiangli Dou School of Economics Jiangli Dou (School of Economics) Industrial Organization 1 / 100 Introduction The study of
More informationEcon 101A Solutions for Final exam  Fall 2006
Econ 101A Solutions for Final exam  Fall 2006 Problem 1. Shorter problems. (35 points) Solve the following shorter problems. 1. Consider the following (simultaneous) game of chicken. This is a game in
More informationUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona Department of Applied Economics
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Department of Applied Economics Annual Report Endogenous R&D investment when learning and technological distance affects absorption capacity Author: Jorge Luis Paz Panizo
More informationRevisiting the Porter Hypothesis
Revisiting the Porter Hypothesis Indrani Roy Chowdhury* and Sandwip K. Das** Abstract We provide a new formulation of the Porter hypothesis that we feel is in the spirit of the hypothesis. Under this
More informationBig fish eat small fish: On merger in Stackelberg markets
Big fish eat small fish: On merger in Stackelberg markets Steffen Huck Royal Holloway College Kai A. Konrad Free University Berlin Wieland Müller Humboldt University Berlin November 7, 200 Abstract In
More informationExclusive Dealing and Entry, when Buyers Compete: Comment
Exclusive Dealing and Entry, when Buyers Compete: Comment Julian Wright Abstract In a recent paper, Chiara Fumagalli and Massimo Motta (2006) challenge the idea that an incumbent can foreclose efficient
More informationMERGER INCENTIVES OF COST ASYMMETRIC FIRMS UNDER PRODUCTION DIFFERENTIATION XIA LI B.A., KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY, 2010 A REPORT
MERGER INCENTIVES OF COST ASYMMETRIC FIRMS UNDER PRODUCTION DIFFERENTIATION By XIA LI B.A., KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY, 00 A REPORT submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER
More informationIncentives in Supply Function Equilibrium
Discussion Paper No. 201438 September 29, 2014 http://www.economicsejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/201438 Please cite the corresponding Journal Article at http://www.economicsejournal.org/economics/journalarticles/20155
More informationBargaining over managerial contracts: a note
MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive Bargaining over managerial contracts: a note Giorgos Stamatopoulos University of Crete 12 April 2018 Online at https://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/86143/ MPRA Paper No. 86143,
More informationDoes it Pay to be First? Sequential Locational Choice and Foreclosure*
Does it Pay to be First? Sequential Locational Choice and Foreclosure* By Nicholas Economides,** Jamie Howell, and Sergio Meza*** This version: December 2004 Abstract We analyze the sequential choices
More informationBackward partial vertical integration with discriminatory pricing
Backward partial vertical integration with discriminatory pricing Ricardo Gonçalves Faculdade de Economia e Gestão, Universidade Católica Portuguesa (Porto) July 2013 Abstract We analyze the market impact
More informationPricing distortions in multisided platforms
Pricing distortions in multisided platforms Hongru Tan and Julian Wright March, 2018 Abstract We show that in the context of pricing by a multisided platform, in addition to the classical marketpower
More informationStrategic segmentation: when two monopolies are better than one
Strategic segmentation: when two monopolies are better than one Barna Bakó András KáleczSimon July 28, 2014 Abstract In this article we show that the price and the profit of an incumbent firm may increase
More informationNBER WORKING PAPER SERIES TYING, UPGRADES, AND SWITCHING COSTS IN DURABLEGOODS MARKETS. Dennis W. Carlton Michael Waldman
NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES TYING, UPGRADES, AND SWITCHING COSTS IN DURABLEGOODS MARKETS Dennis W. Carlton Michael Waldman Working Paper 11407 http://www.nber.org/papers/w11407 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC
More information1.. There are two firms that produce a homogeneous product. Let p i
University of California, Davis Department of Economics Time: 3 hours Reading time: 20 minutes PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION FOR THE Ph.D. DEGREE Industrial Organization June 30, 2005 Answer four of the six
More informationOnline shopping and platform design with ex ante registration requirements. Online Appendix
Online shopping and platform design with ex ante registration requirements Online Appendix June 7, 206 This supplementary appendix to the article Online shopping and platform design with ex ante registration
More informationOPTIMAL RENTING/SELLING STRATERGIES IN OLIGOPOLY DURABLE GOODS MARKETS. Golovko Sergiy
OPTIMAL RENTING/SELLING STRATERGIES IN OLIGOPOLY DURABLE GOODS MARKETS by Golovko Sergiy A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MA in Economics Kyiv School of Economics
More informationOnline shopping and platform design with ex ante registration requirements
Online shopping and platform design with ex ante registration requirements O A Florian Morath Johannes Münster June 17, 2016 This supplementary appendix to the article Online shopping and platform design
More informationStrategic Trade Policies and Managerial Incentives under International Cross Ownership 1
Review of Economics & Finance Submitted on 30/03/2015 Article ID: 192375292015047814 Fang Wei Strategic Trade Policies and Managerial Incentives under International Cross Ownership 1 Dr. Fang Wei
More informationPart II. Market power
Part II. Market power Chapter 3. Static imperfect competition Slides Industrial Organization: Markets and Strategies Paul Belleflamme and Martin Peitz Cambridge University Press 2009 Introduction to Part
More informationStrategic R and D investments with uncertainty. Abstract
Strategic R and D investments with uncertainty Toshihiro Matsumura Institute of Social Science, University of Tokyo Abstract I introduce uncertainty into the model of strategic cost reducing R and D investments
More informationMultilateral Vertical Contracting with an Alternative Supply: The Welfare Effects of a Ban on Price Discrimination
Review of Industrial Organization (2006) 28:63 80 Springer 2006 DOI 10.1007/s1115100600086 Multilateral Vertical Contracting with an Alternative Supply: The Welfare Effects of a Ban on Price Discrimination
More informationMEMO. 1 SingleProduct Monopolist. 1.1 Inverse Elasticity Rule. Date: October Subject: Notes from Tirole on Monopoly Ch.1: pp
MEMO To: From: File FM Date: October 2018 Subject: Notes from Tirole on Monopoly Ch.1: pp. 6578. Competitive options. Consider 3 mutually excluive choices for competitive market: as follows: (i) choice
More informationLecture 7: More on product differentiation Introduction to the economics of advertising Tom Holden
Lecture 7: More on product differentiation Introduction to the economics of advertising Tom Holden http://io.tholden.org/ Endogenous differentiation: Horizontal (different consumers prefer different products)
More informationAnticompetitive Vertical Mergers Waves
Anticompetitive Vertical Mergers Waves Johan Hombert Jerome Pouyet Nicolas Schutz Preliminary  Please do not quote  Comments welcome Abstract We develop an equilibrium model of vertical mergers. We show
More informationEconS Bertrand Competition
EconS 425  Bertrand Competition Eric Dunaway Washington State University eric.dunaway@wsu.edu Industrial Organization Eric Dunaway (WSU) EconS 425 Industrial Organization 1 / 38 Introduction Today, we
More informationVertical Differentiation in Monetary SearchTheoretic Model: Revisited. ChiaYing Chang Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
Vertical Differentiation in Monetary SearchTheoretic Model: Revisited ChiaYing Chang Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand May, 2005 Abstract Quality levels have been widely discussed in the
More informationVertical Mergers. The retailer has marginal cost of Pu+lOO where PU is the price per unit charged by the upstream manufacturer Grapefruit.
Vertical Mergers Suppose that Grapefruit Computers makes a unique product that is distributed exclusively by the retailer Better Buy. Both firms act as monopolists to maximize their profits. Consumers
More informationEconomics of Industrial Organization. Lecture 12: Mergers
Economics of Industrial Organization Lecture 12: Mergers Mergers Thus far we have talked about industry dynamics in terms of firms entering and exiting the industry, and have assumed that all these firms
More informationOligopoly Theory (11) Collusion
Oligopoly Theory (11) Collusion Aim of this lecture (1) To understand the idea of repeated game. (2) To understand the idea of the stability of collusion. Oligopoly Theory 1 Outline of the 11th Lecture
More informationIntegrating Production Costs in Channel Decisions
Journal of Retailing 87 1, 2011) 101 110 Integrating Production Costs in Channel Decisions Ruhai Wu a,1, Suman Basuroy b,, Srinath Beldona c,2 a DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, 1280 Main
More informationChapter 12: Limit Pricing and Entry Deterrence
Chapter 12: Limit Pricing and Entry Deterrence Learning Objectives: Students should learn to: 1. Define and give examples of predatory conduct. 2. Explain stylized facts about the entry of firms into industries.
More informationAntitrust Policy and Environmental Protection. Abstract
Antitrust Policy and Environmental Protection Shigeru Matsumoto Kansai University Hajime Sugeta Kansai University Abstract We examine the effects of antitrust policy (the prohibition of a input price discrimination)
More informationUC Berkeley Haas School of Business Economic Analysis for Business Decisions (EWMBA 201A) Monopoly Behavior Advanced Pricing with Market Power
UC Berkeley Haas School of Business Economic Analysis for Business Decisions (EWMBA 201A) Monopoly Behavior Advanced Pricing with Market Power Session VI Sep 25, 2010 In a competitive market there are
More informationThe Quality of Complex Systems and Industry Structure
Forthcoming in W. Lehr (ed.), Quality and Reliability of Telecommunications Infrastructure. Lawrence Erlbaum. Hillsdale, NJ: 1995. The Quality of Complex Systems and Industry Structure by Nicholas Economides
More informationVertical Integration and Downstream Collusion
Vertical Integration and Downstream Collusion Sara Biancini and David Ettinger Vertical Integration and Downstream Collusion Sara Biancini, David Ettinger. September 2015 Preliminary Version Abstract We
More informationMergers, Spinoffs, and Employee Incentives
Mergers, Spinoffs, and Employee Incentives Paolo Fulghieri University of North Carolina Merih Sevilir University of North Carolina Abstract This paper studies mergers between competing firms and shows
More informationPrice discrimination and limits to arbitrage: An analysis of global LNG markets
Price discrimination and limits to arbitrage: An analysis of global LNG markets Robert A. Ritz Faculty of Economics & Energy Policy Research Group (EPRG) University of Cambridge 2014 Toulouse Energy Conference
More informationThe Impact of Access to Consumer Data on the. Competitive Effects of Horizontal Mergers
The Impact of Access to Consumer Data on the Competitive Effects of Horizontal Mergers JinHyuk Kim Liad Wagman Abraham L. Wickelgren Abstract The influence of firms ability to employ individualized pricing
More informationVertical Contracts and Mandatory Universal. Distribution
Vertical Contracts and Mandatory Universal Distribution Larry S. Karp Jeffrey M. Perloff July 2012 Abstract An upstream monopoly that provides a new good to a downstream oligopoly might prefer to sell
More informationBargaining, bundling, and clout: the portfolio effects of horizontal mergers
Bargaining, bundling, and clout: the portfolio effects of horizontal mergers Daniel P. O Brien and Greg Shaffer July 2004 Abstract This paper examines the output and profit effects of horizontal mergers
More informationStrategic Alliances, Joint Investments, and Market Structure
Strategic Alliances, Joint Investments, and Market Structure Essi Eerola RUESG, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland Niku Määttänen Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain and The Research Institute
More informationIn each case: fixed firms in the market, then entry/exit
Main structure Firms are pricetakers (Perfect competition) Firms have market power (Imperfect competition) (Sessions 1 6) (Firms decisions &equilibrium) Firms decisions Equilibrium (Sessions 7 11) (Sessions
More informationPrice competition in a differentiated products duopoly under network effects
Price competition in a differentiated products duopoly under network effects Krina Griva Nikolaos Vettas February 005 Abstract We examine price competition under productspecific network effects, in a
More informationModeling of competition in revenue management Petr Fiala 1
Modeling of competition in revenue management Petr Fiala 1 Abstract. Revenue management (RM) is the art and science of predicting consumer behavior and optimizing price and product availability to maximize
More informationQuasi linear Utility and Two Market Monopoly
Quasi linear Utility and Two Market Monopoly By Stephen K. Layson Department of Economics 457 Bryan Building, UNCG Greensboro, NC 27412 5001 USA (336) 334 4868 Fax (336) 334 5580 layson@uncg.edu ABSTRACT
More information9 The optimum of Oligopoly
Microeconomics I  Lecture #9, December 1, 2008 9 The optimum of Oligopoly During previous lectures we have investigated two important forms of market structure: pure competition, where there are typically
More informationVolume 31, Issue 4. Free entry and welfare with price discrimination
Volume 31, Issue 4 Free entry and welfare with price discrimination Francisco Galera Universidad de Navarra Pedro Mendi Universidad de Navarra Abstract We show that if firms in an industry engage in thirddegree
More informationAdvance Selling, Competition, and Brand Substitutability
Advance Selling, Competition, and Brand Substitutability Oksana Loginova October 27, 2016 Abstract This paper studies the impact of competition on the benefits of advance selling. I construct a twoperiod
More informationUC Berkeley Haas School of Business Economic Analysis for Business Decisions (EWMBA 201A) Leftovers, review and takeaways Lectures Oct.
UC Berkeley Haas School of Business Economic Analysis for Business Decisions (EWMBA 201A) Leftovers, review and takeaways Lectures 1314 Oct. 1, 2011 Pricing While there is some involved analysis required,
More informationExclusion by a manufacturer without a firstmover advantage
Exclusion by a manufacturer without a firstmover advantage Bo Shen Jan, 2014 Abstract The existing literature on naked exclusion argues that exclusive contracts can be used by an incumbent firm to anticompetitively
More informationUNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST CAPE COAST  GHANA BASIC OLIGOPOLY MODELS
UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST CAPE COAST  GHANA BASIC OLIGOPOLY MODELS Overview I. Conditions for Oligopoly? II. Role of Strategic Interdependence III. Profit Maximization in Four Oligopoly Settings Sweezy
More informationOPTIMAL R&D POLICY AND ENDOGENOUS QUALITY CHOICE
MS # 1949 OPTIMAL R&D POLICY AND ENDOGENOUS QUALITY CHOICE Tsuyoshi TOSHIMITSU * Kwansei Gakuin University Final version March 2003 Abstract In a qualitydifferentiated duopoly where (i) quality is endogenously
More informationRenting or Selling A Strategic Choice in a Durable Good Market
Renting or Selling A Strategic Choice in a Durable Good Market Manas Paul Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research Gen. Vaidya Marg Goregaon (East) Bombay 400 065. Sougata Poddar Department of Economics
More informationNBER WORKING PAPER SERIES SPATIAL PRICE DISCRIMINATION WITH HETEROGENEOUS FIRMS. Jonathan Vogel. Working Paper
NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES SPATIAL PRICE DISCRIMINATION WITH HETEROGENEOUS FIRMS Jonathan Vogel Working Paper 14978 http://www.nber.org/papers/w14978 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts
More informationBUYER POWER AND EXCLUSION IN VERTICALLY RELATED MARKETS.
WORKING PAPERS IN ECONOMICS No.01/12 TOMMY STAAHL GABRIELSEN AND BJØRN OLAV JOHANSEN BUYER POWER AND EXCLUSION IN VERTICALLY RELATED MARKETS. Department of Economics U N I V E R S I T Y OF B E R G EN Buyer
More informationExamples: Kellogg s: breakfast cereals, Procter and Gamble: 12 different versions of Head &Shoulder Shampoo, Automobile producers Various types of
137 Examples: Kellogg s: breakfast cereals, Procter and Gamble: 12 different versions of Head &Shoulder Shampoo, Automobile producers Various types of BMW 1,3,5,7. Hyperlink Harald Schmidt Show: rtsp://streamer2.streaming.szm.de/sat1/schmidt/media//03/03/20/procter_56.rm
More informationAE 503 MANUFACTURERS AND RETAILERS: USE OF VERTICAL RESTRAINTS. Professor Ian Sheldon
AE 503 MANUFACTURERS AND RETAILERS: USE OF VERTICAL RESTRAINTS Professor Ian Sheldon Manufacturers often use vertical restraints in dealing with retailers: Resale price maintenance Exclusive dealing Exclusive
More informationDouble Marginalization and the Cost of Shelf Space
Rapport 4/2018 Double Marginalization and the Cost of Shelf Space Tommy Gabrielsen, Bjørn Olav Johansen og Greg Shaffer Prosjektet har mottatt forskningsmidler fra det alminnelige prisreguleringsfondet.
More informationOption Contracts and Vertical Foreclosure
Option Contracts and Vertical Foreclosure CHINGTO ALBERT MA Boston University Boston, MA 02215 ma@econ.bu.edu A model of vertical integration is studied. Upstream firms sell differentiated inputs; downstream
More informationBundling and Quality Disclosure in a Bayesian Game
Journal of Game Theory 2015, 4(1): 1317 DO: 10.5923/j.jgt.20150401.03 undling and Quality Disclosure in a ayesian Game Qing Hu Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan Abstract We analyze
More informationVolume 29, Issue 4. Customization: Ideal Varieties, Product Uniqueness and Price Competition
Volume 29, Issue 4 Customization: Ideal Varieties, Product Uniqueness and Price Competition Oksana Loginova University of MissouriColumbia X. Henry Wang University of MissouriColumbia Abstract We study
More informationEcn Intermediate Microeconomic Theory University of California  Davis December 10, 2009 Instructor: John Parman. Final Exam
Ecn 100  Intermediate Microeconomic Theory University of California  Davis December 10, 2009 Instructor: John Parman Final Exam You have until 12:30pm to complete this exam. Be certain to put your name,
More informationSolutions to Final Exam
Solutions to Final Exam AEC 504  Summer 2007 Fundamentals of Economics c 2007 Alexander Barinov 1 Veni, vidi, vici (30 points) Two firms with constant marginal costs serve two markets for two different
More informationThe Basic Spatial Model with a Single Monopolist
Economics 335 March 3, 999 Notes 8: Models of Spatial Competition I. Product differentiation A. Definition Products are said to be differentiated if consumers consider them to be imperfect substitutes.
More informationA note on acquisition of complements in a vertically differentiated market
A note on acquisition of complements in a vertically differentiated market Ornella Tarola Cecilia Vergari Quaderni  Working Paper DSE N 832 A note on acquisition of complements in a vertically di erentiated
More informationPriceMatching in a Sequential Search Duopoly. Aleksandr Yankelevich Department of Economics Washington University in St. Louis
PriceMatching in a Sequential Search Duopoly Aleksandr Yankelevich Department of Economics Washington University in St. Louis Competitor Based Price Clauses Competitor Based Price Clauses: any price guarantee
More information14.01 Principles of Microeconomics, Fall 2007 ChiaHui Chen November 7, Lecture 22
Monopoly. Principles of Microeconomics, Fall ChiaHui Chen November, Lecture Monopoly Outline. Chap : Monopoly. Chap : Shift in Demand and Effect of Tax Monopoly The monopolist is the single supplyside
More informationThe Optimal Licensing Strategy of an Outside Patentee in VerticallyRelated Markets
International Journal of Economics and Finance; Vol. 5, No. 3; 013 ISSN 191971X EISSN 191978 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education The Optimal Licensing Strategy of an Outside Patentee
More informationEcn Intermediate Microeconomic Theory University of California  Davis December 10, 2008 Professor John Parman.
Ecn 100  Intermediate Microeconomic Theory University of California  Davis December 10, 2008 Professor John Parman Final Examination You have until 12:30pm to complete the exam, be certain to use your
More information