IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/stabus/3742.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Optimal Commissions and Subscriptions in Networked Markets

Author

Listed:
  • Birge, John R.

    (Booth School of Business, University of Chicago)

  • Candogan, Ozan

    (Booth School of Business, University of Chicago)

  • Chen, Hongfan

    (Booth School of Business, University of Chicago)

  • Saban, Daniela

    (Graduate School of Business, Stanford University)

Abstract

Two salient features of most online platforms are that they do not dictate the transaction prices, and use commissions/subscriptions for extracting revenues. We consider a platform that charges commission rates and subscription fees to sellers and buyers for facilitating transactions, but does not directly control the transaction prices, which are determined by the traders. Buyers and sellers are divided into types, and we represent the compatibility between different types using a bipartite network. Traders are heterogeneous in terms of their valuations, and different types have possibly different value distributions. The platform chooses commissions-subscriptions to maximize its revenues. We provide a convex optimization formulation to calculate the revenue-maximizing commissions/subscriptions, and establish that, typically, different types should be charged different commissions/subscriptions depending on their network positions. We establish lower and upper bounds on the platform’s revenues in terms of the supply-demand imbalance across the network. Motivated by simpler schemes used in practice, we show that the revenue loss can be unbounded when all traders on the same side are charged the same commissions/subscriptions, and bound the revenue loss in terms of the supply-demand imbalance across the network. Charging only buyers or only sellers leads to a (bounded) revenue loss, even when different types on the same side can be charged differently. Under mild assumptions, we establish that a revenue-maximizing platform achieves at least 2/3 of the maximum achievable social welfare. Our results highlight the suboptimality of commonly used payment schemes, and showcase the importance of accounting for the compatibility between different user types.

Suggested Citation

  • Birge, John R. & Candogan, Ozan & Chen, Hongfan & Saban, Daniela, 2018. "Optimal Commissions and Subscriptions in Networked Markets," Research Papers 3742, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
  • Handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:3742
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/gsb-cmis/gsb-cmis-download-auth/471086
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gérard P. Cachon & Kaitlin M. Daniels & Ruben Lobel, 2017. "The Role of Surge Pricing on a Service Platform with Self-Scheduling Capacity," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 368-384, July.
    2. Jean‐Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2006. "Two‐sided markets: a progress report," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 645-667, September.
    3. Gofman, Michael, 2017. "Efficiency and stability of a financial architecture with too-interconnected-to-fail institutions," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 113-146.
    4. Terry A. Taylor, 2018. "On-Demand Service Platforms," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 704-720, October.
    5. Abreu, Dilip & Manea, Mihai, 2012. "Bargaining and efficiency in networks," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 43-70.
    6. Jean-Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2003. "Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(4), pages 990-1029, June.
    7. E. Glen Weyl, 2010. "A Price Theory of Multi-sided Platforms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1642-1672, September.
    8. Babaioff, Moshe & Nisan, Noam & Pavlov, Elan, 2009. "Mechanisms for a spatially distributed market," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 660-684, July.
    9. Daniele Condorelli & Andrea Galeotti & Ludovic Renou, 2017. "Bilateral Trading in Networks," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 84(1), pages 82-105.
    10. Blume, Lawrence E. & Easley, David & Kleinberg, Jon & Tardos, Éva, 2009. "Trading networks with price-setting agents," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 36-50, September.
    11. Kostas Bimpikis & Ozan Candogan & Daniela Saban, 2019. "Spatial Pricing in Ride-Sharing Networks," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 744-769, May.
    12. Rachel E. Kranton & Deborah F. Minehart, 2001. "A Theory of Buyer-Seller Networks," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(3), pages 485-508, June.
    13. Saif Benjaafar & Guangwen Kong & Xiang Li & Costas Courcoubetis, 2019. "Peer-to-Peer Product Sharing: Implications for Ownership, Usage, and Social Welfare in the Sharing Economy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(2), pages 477-493, February.
    14. Satoru Fujishige, 1980. "Lexicographically Optimal Base of a Polymatroid with Respect to a Weight Vector," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 5(2), pages 186-196, May.
    15. Mihai Manea, 2018. "Intermediation and Resale in Networks," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(3), pages 1250-1301.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Saeed Alaei & Ali Makhdoumi & Azarakhsh Malekian & Saša Pekeč, 2022. "Revenue-Sharing Allocation Strategies for Two-Sided Media Platforms: Pro-Rata vs. User-Centric," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(12), pages 8699-8721, December.
    2. Zhu, Haoruo & Ni, Yaodong & Yang, Meng & Song, Qinyu, 2023. "Blessing or curse? Impact of incomplete information in a networked cournot competition," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    3. Charlson, G., 2020. "Searching for Results: Optimal Platform Design in a Network Setting," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 20118, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhen Lian & Garrett van Ryzin, 2021. "Optimal Growth in Two-Sided Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(11), pages 6862-6879, November.
    2. Thành Nguyen & Karthik Kannan, 2021. "Welfare Implications in Intermediary Networks," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 378-393, June.
    3. Wang, Hai & Yang, Hai, 2019. "Ridesourcing systems: A framework and review," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 122-155.
    4. Jiaru Bai & Kut C. So & Christopher S. Tang & Xiqun (Michael) Chen & Hai Wang, 2019. "Coordinating Supply and Demand on an On-Demand Service Platform with Impatient Customers," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 556-570, July.
    5. Jackson, Matthew O. & Zenou, Yves, 2015. "Games on Networks," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    6. Saif Benjaafar & Ming Hu, 2020. "Operations Management in the Age of the Sharing Economy: What Is Old and What Is New?," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 93-101, January.
    7. Alison Watts, 2016. "Auctions Versus Private Negotiations in Buyer-Seller Networks," Games, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-14, August.
    8. Sun, Luoyi & Teunter, Ruud H. & Babai, M. Zied & Hua, Guowei, 2019. "Optimal pricing for ride-sourcing platforms," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(3), pages 783-795.
    9. Chen, Mingyang & Zhao, Daozhi & Gong, Yeming & Rekik, Yacine, 2022. "An on-demand service platform with self-scheduling capacity: Uniform versus multiplier-based pricing," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 243(C).
    10. Kariv, Shachar & Kotowski, Maciej H. & Leister, C. Matthew, 2018. "Liquidity risk in sequential trading networks," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 565-581.
    11. Li, Xin & Li, Qingying & Guo, Pengfei, 2021. "Time-based or fixed-fee? How to penalize cancellation of orders of car-hailing applications," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 232(C).
    12. Lin, Xiaogang & Sun, Cuiying & Cao, Bin & Zhou, Yong-Wu & Chen, Chuanying, 2021. "Should ride-sharing platforms cooperate with car-rental companies? Implications for consumer surplus and driver surplus," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    13. BEDAYO, Mikel & MAULEON, Ana & VANNETELBOSCH, Vincent, 2012. "Bargaining and delay in trading networks," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2012046, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    14. Li, Sen & Tavafoghi, Hamidreza & Poolla, Kameshwar & Varaiya, Pravin, 2019. "Regulating TNCs: Should Uber and Lyft set their own rules?," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 193-225.
    15. Lin Tian & Baojun Jiang & Yifan Xu, 2021. "Manufacturer’s Entry in the Product-Sharing Market," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 553-568, May.
    16. Yunke Mai & Bin Hu & Saša Pekeč, 2023. "Courteous or Crude? Managing User Conduct to Improve On-Demand Service Platform Performance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(2), pages 996-1016, February.
    17. Cho, Myeonghwan, 2021. "Trading networks of price-taking buyers and sellers," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    18. Jiayi Joey Yu & Christopher S. Tang & Zuo-Jun Max Shen & Xiqun Michael Chen, 2020. "A Balancing Act of Regulating On-Demand Ride Services," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(7), pages 2975-2992, July.
    19. De Munck, Thomas & Chevalier, Philippe & Tancrez, Jean-Sébastien, 2023. "Managing priorities on on-demand service platforms with waiting time differentiation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    20. Scott Duke Kominers & Alexander Teytelboym & Vincent P Crawford, 2017. "An invitation to market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 541-571.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:3742. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gsstaus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.