IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v255y2025ics0165176525004148.html

When to degrade a product: The utility-to-cost ratio rule

Author

Listed:
  • Vo, Mike

Abstract

This paper analyzes product degradation as a screening tool under asymmetric information, emphasizing cost-efficiency over traditional concerns about information rents. Using the virtual surplus framework, we derive a sharp, distribution-free condition for profitable versioning: a degraded product should be introduced if and only if its utility-to-cost ratio exceeds that of the full-featured version. We then examine settings with multiple low-end options and identify two sufficient conditions for optimal design. The firm prefers the more degraded product when it offers a superior cost-efficiency of utility reduction, and the less degraded one when it offers a better cost-efficiency of utility delivery.

Suggested Citation

  • Vo, Mike, 2025. "When to degrade a product: The utility-to-cost ratio rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 255(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:255:y:2025:i:c:s0165176525004148
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2025.112577
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176525004148
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econlet.2025.112577?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thierry Mayer & Marc J. Melitz & Gianmarco I. P. Ottaviano, 2021. "Market Size, Competition, and the Product Mix of Exporters," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Firms and Workers in a Globalized World Larger Markets, Tougher Competition, chapter 5, pages 109-150, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Armstrong, Mark & Vickers, John, 2001. "Competitive Price Discrimination," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(4), pages 579-605, Winter.
    3. Gomes, Renato & Maestri, Lucas & Lozachmeur, Jean-Marie, 2020. "Nonlinear Pricing in Oligopoly: How Brand Preferences Shape Market Outcomes," CEPR Discussion Papers 15253, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Andrew B. Bernard & Stephen J. Redding & Peter K. Schott, 2010. "Multiple-Product Firms and Product Switching," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 70-97, March.
    5. Dirk Bergemann & Stephen Morris, 2012. "Robust Mechanism Design," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Robust Mechanism Design The Role of Private Information and Higher Order Beliefs, chapter 2, pages 49-96, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Jean-Charles Rochet & Lars A. Stole, 2002. "Nonlinear Pricing with Random Participation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 69(1), pages 277-311.
    7. Mussa, Michael & Rosen, Sherwin, 1978. "Monopoly and product quality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 301-317, August.
    8. David Martimort & Lars A. Stole, 2020. "Nonlinear Pricing with Average-Price Bias," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 2(3), pages 375-396, September.
    9. Eric Maskin & John Riley, 1984. "Monopoly with Incomplete Information," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(2), pages 171-196, Summer.
    10. Thierry Mayer & Marc J. Melitz & Gianmarco I. P. Ottaviano, 2021. "Market Size, Competition, and the Product Mix of Exporters," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Firms and Workers in a Globalized World Larger Markets, Tougher Competition, chapter 5, pages 109-150, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. McAfee, R. Preston, 2007. "Pricing Damaged Goods," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy, vol. 1, pages 1-19.
    12. Roger B. Myerson, 1981. "Optimal Auction Design," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 58-73, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Mark Armstrong, 2016. "Nonlinear Pricing," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 8(1), pages 583-614, October.
    2. Garrett, Daniel & Gomes, Renato & Maestri, Lucas, 2021. "Oligopoly under incomplete information: On the welfare effects of price discrimination," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    3. Ye, Lixin & Zhang, Chenglin, 2017. "Monopolistic nonlinear pricing with consumer entry," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), January.
    4. Renato Gomes & Alessandro Pavan, 2013. "Cross-Subsidization and Matching Design," Discussion Papers 1559, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    5. Stole, Lars A., 2007. "Price Discrimination and Competition," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: Mark Armstrong & Robert Porter (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 34, pages 2221-2299, Elsevier.
    6. Li, Han & Dinlersoz, Emin, 2012. "Quality-based Price Discrimination: Evidence from Internet Retailers’ Shipping Options," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 276-290.
    7. Basov Suren & Yin Xiangkang, 2010. "Optimal Screening by Risk-Averse Principals," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-25, March.
    8. Sissel Jensen, 2006. "Implementation of competitive nonlinear pricing: tariffs with inclusive consumption," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 10(1), pages 9-29, April.
    9. Anderson, Simon P. & Celik, Levent, 2015. "Product line design," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 517-526.
    10. Renato Gomes & Alessandro Pavan, 2011. "Price Discrimination in Many-to-Many Matching Markets," Discussion Papers 1540, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    11. Yossi Spiegel & Simon Wilkie, 2000. "Optimal Multiproduct Nonlinear Pricing with Correlated Consumer Types," Discussion Papers 1299, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    12. Jensen, Sissel, 2008. "Two-part tariffs with quality degradation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 473-489, March.
    13. Khaled Diaw & Jérôme Pouyet, 2005. "Information, competition and (In) complete discrimination," Working Papers hal-00243025, HAL.
    14. Jian Shen & Huanxing Yang & Lixin Ye, 2016. "Competitive Nonlinear Pricing and Contract Variety," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(1), pages 64-108, March.
    15. repec:aen:journl:ej35-1-04 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Meng, Dawen & Tian, Guoqiang, 2008. "Nonlinear Pricing with Network Externalities and Countervailing Incentives," MPRA Paper 41212, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Aug 2008.
    17. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107069978, Enero-Abr.
    18. David Martimort & Lars Stole, 2009. "Market participation in delegated and intrinsic common‐agency games," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(1), pages 78-102, March.
    19. Atabek Atayev, 2021. "Nonlinear Prices, Homogeneous Goods, Search," Papers 2109.15198, arXiv.org.
    20. Laurence Jacquet & Etienne lehmann & Bruno Van Der Linden, 2012. "Signing distortions in optimal tax or other adverse selection models with random participation," Thema Working Papers 2012-27, THEMA (Théorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), CY Cergy-Paris University, ESSEC and CNRS.
    21. Eugenio J. Miravete, 2004. "The Doubtful Profitability of Foggy Pricing," Working Papers 04-07, NET Institute.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:ecolet:v:255:y:2025:i:c:s0165176525004148. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    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.