IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijidsc/v2y2010i3p304-317.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do what yourself: reevaluation of the value created by online and traditional intermediary

Author

Listed:
  • Ju Long

Abstract

Information system research posits that online intermediaries could reduce consumer search cost and improve market efficiency, and traditional intermediary would lose market share upon the advent of online intermediary. However, in reality, traditional intermediaries still hold strong market share positions. What are the advantages and disadvantages of online intermediaries and traditional intermediaries? Our research is an effort to address these questions so that we can better explain and predict intermediary's performance. We develop our analysis based on financial intermediation theory, and adopt delegated monitoring model to compare the intrinsic structures and efficiency of online intermediaries and traditional intermediaries. We achieve two important conclusions: first, when information asymmetry exists, traditional intermediary could improve consumer welfare. Second, traditional intermediary improves market welfare because it can diversify its delegated tasks. Based on these results, we also identify market segments and marketing strategies of online and traditional intermediaries.

Suggested Citation

  • Ju Long, 2010. "Do what yourself: reevaluation of the value created by online and traditional intermediary," International Journal of Information and Decision Sciences, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(3), pages 304-317.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijidsc:v:2:y:2010:i:3:p:304-317
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=33453
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:ids:ijidsc:v:2:y:2010:i:3:p:304-317. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=306 .

    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.