This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Durable Goods Monopoly with Quality Improvements over Time

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Gary Biglaiser
James J. Anton

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

We examine a dynamic, durable goods model. A monopolist faces two types of consumers who value the monopolist’s goods differently. The quality of the good improves over time and an improvement is only valuable to consumers if they have previous improvements. In each period, the monopolist can sell any possible bundle of previous improvements along with the current improvement. The firm cannot condition its prices or bundles that it offers an individual consumer. Thus, we are in the anonymous purchasing framework as defined by Fudenberg and Tirole (1998). Furthermore, the firm cannot commit to either future prices or bundles. Our main application is the software market, but the model also addresses issues important in other markets such as those for video games. We characterize the subgame perfect Markov equilibrium. Our results include the following. The equilibrium will exhibit cycles in the sense that the distance between the qualities of goods held by high and low types will grow from an initial level and then the low types will “catch-up” to the quality distance at the beginning of a cycle. This generates an underlying stationarity of the equilibrium. We interpret this catching up phase as an introduction of a new generation of software as opposed to an upgrade. We also show that the equilibrium can be “non-Coasian” in the following sense: there can be periods where there are no sales of an improvement to the low value consumers in a period, even though all high value consumers already possess the improvement. The reason that the firm may engage in such a strategy is that not selling to low value consumers today makes it more costly for high value consumers to mimic low value consumer’s behavior and obtain information rents. This allows the firm to charge a higher price for the current improvement to the high value consumers. In other words, the intertemporal incentive compatibility constraint for the high value consumers is relaxed by not selling to low value consumers. We relate our work to the bundling literature where consumers can have many different preference parameters.

Download Info
To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Econometric Society in its series Econometric Society 2004 North American Winter Meetings with number 354.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML, plain text, BibTeX, RIS (EndNote), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 11 Aug 2004
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ecm:nawm04:354

Contact details of provider:
Phone: 1 212 998 3820
Fax: 1 212 995 4487
Email:
Web page: http://www.econometricsociety.org/pastmeetings.asp
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

Related research
Keywords: Durable Goods Monopolist Innovation Bundle Pricing

Find related papers by JEL classification:
L15 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Information and Product Quality
D42 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure and Pricing - - - Monopoly

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? IDEAS also indexes books.

This page was last updated on 2008-8-11.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.