IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v33y2022i4p1287-1302.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Seller Organization and Percentage Fee Design in the Daily Deal Market

Author

Listed:
  • Yao Tang

    (School of Business Administration, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan 430073, China)

  • Xu Guan

    (School of Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China)

Abstract

Motivated by the prosperity of the daily deal market, this paper investigates the interplay between a platform and sellers, wherein the platform selects a limited number of competing sellers from the seller pool to conduct daily deal campaigns under a certain organization format. We consider two prevalent seller organization formats in practice: one is the seller agglomeration strategy, under which the platform does not distinguish the sellers’ type when selecting them from the seller pool, and the other one is the seller segmentation strategy, under which the platform organizes sellers of the same type to compete in each round of the campaign. We show that different seller organization formats can significantly influence the platform’s and sellers’ pricing strategies, leading to adverse effects on the platform’s and sellers’ profitability. In comparison with the agglomeration strategy, the segmentation strategy eliminates internal information asymmetry between the sellers, which enables them to make more adequate pricing decisions and improves sales revenue. This result reversely incentivizes the platform to charge a higher percentage fee and thus obtain a higher profit. However, the increase in the percentage fee further decentralizes the vertical relationship between the platform and sellers; as a result, the sellers’ and system’s profits decrease under the segmentation strategy. We also examine alternative game settings based on heterogenous potential demand, consumer retention behavior, platform competition, percentage fee discrimination, and whether the number of competing sellers is endogenous and show that the main results are quite robust.

Suggested Citation

  • Yao Tang & Xu Guan, 2022. "Seller Organization and Percentage Fee Design in the Daily Deal Market," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(4), pages 1287-1302, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:33:y:2022:i:4:p:1287-1302
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.2021.1070
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.2021.1070
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.2021.1070?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Upender Subramanian & Ram C. Rao, 2016. "Leveraging Experienced Consumers to Attract New Consumers: An Equilibrium Analysis of Displaying Deal Sales by Daily Deal Websites," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(12), pages 3555-3575, December.
    2. Mantian (Mandy) Hu & Chu (Ivy) Dang & Pradeep K. Chintagunta, 2019. "Search and Learning at a Daily Deals Website," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(4), pages 609-642, July.
    3. Brent Kitchens & Anuj Kumar & Praveen Pathak, 2018. "Electronic Markets and Geographic Competition Among Small, Local Firms," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 928-946, December.
    4. Heiko Karle & Martin Peitz & Markus Reisinger, 2020. "Segmentation versus Agglomeration: Competition between Platforms with Competitive Sellers," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(6), pages 2329-2374.
    5. Zhu Wang & Julian Wright, 2017. "Ad valorem platform fees, indirect taxes, and efficient price discrimination," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 48(2), pages 467-484, May.
    6. Bulow, Jeremy I & Geanakoplos, John D & Klemperer, Paul D, 1985. "Multimarket Oligopoly: Strategic Substitutes and Complements," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(3), pages 488-511, June.
    7. Zike Cao & Kai-Lung Hui & Hong Xu, 2018. "When Discounts Hurt Sales: The Case of Daily-Deal Markets," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 567-591, September.
    8. Zhu Wang & Julian Wright, 2018. "Should platforms be allowed to charge ad valorem fees?," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 739-760, September.
    9. Vibhanshu Abhishek & Kinshuk Jerath & Z. John Zhang, 2016. "Agency Selling or Reselling? Channel Structures in Electronic Retailing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(8), pages 2259-2280, August.
    10. Ming Zhao & Yulan Wang & Xianghua Gan, 2016. "Signalling effect of daily deal promotion for a start-up service provider," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 67(2), pages 280-293, February.
    11. Hui Li & Qiaowei Shen & Yakov Bart, 2018. "Local Market Characteristics and Online-to-Offline Commerce: An Empirical Analysis of Groupon," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 1860-1878, April.
    12. Song, Minjae & Park, Eunho & Yoo, Byungjoon & Jeon, Seongmin, 2016. "Is the Daily Deal Social Shopping?: An Empirical Analysis of Customer Panel Data," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 57-76.
    13. Baojun Jiang & Kinshuk Jerath & Kannan Srinivasan, 2011. "Firm Strategies in the "Mid Tail" of Platform-Based Retailing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 757-775, September.
    14. Xiaoqing Jing & Jinhong Xie, 2011. "Group Buying: A New Mechanism for Selling Through Social Interactions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(8), pages 1354-1372, August.
    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. Tang, Yao & Chen, Rachel R. & Guan, Xu, 2021. "Daily-deal market with consumer retention: Price discrimination or quality differentiation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    2. Yao Tang, 2023. "A product strategy for daily deal campaigns utilizing demand expansion and consumer leakage," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 1861-1883, September.
    3. Doh-Shin Jeon & Yassine Lefouili & Leonardo Madio, 2021. "Platform Liability and Innovation," Working Papers 21-05, NET Institute.
    4. Hui Li & Qiaowei Shen & Yakov Bart, 2021. "Dynamic Resource Allocation on Multi-Category Two-Sided Platforms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 984-1003, February.
    5. Hui Li & Feng Zhu, 2021. "Information Transparency, Multihoming, and Platform Competition: A Natural Experiment in the Daily Deals Market," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(7), pages 4384-4407, July.
    6. Jorge Mejia & Anandasivam Gopal & Michael Trusov, 2020. "Deal or No Deal? Online Deals, Retailer Heterogeneity, and Brand Evaluations in a Competitive Environment," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 1087-1106, December.
    7. Xue Bai & James R. Marsden & William T. Ross & Gang Wang, 2020. "A Note on the Impact of Daily Deals on Local Retailers’ Online Reputation: Mediation Effects of the Consumer Experience," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 1132-1143, December.
    8. Cai, Ya-Jun & Lo, Chris K.Y., 2020. "Omni-channel management in the new retailing era: A systematic review and future research agenda," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    9. Fei Long & Kinshuk Jerath & Miklos Sarvary, 2022. "Designing an Online Retail Marketplace: Leveraging Information from Sponsored Advertising," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(1), pages 115-138, January.
    10. Zhang, Zhichao & Xu, Haiyan & Ke, Ginger Y. & Chen, Kebing, 2022. "Selecting online distribution modes for differentiated products in a platform supply chain," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
    11. Markus Reisinger & Jens Schmidt & Nils Stieglitz, 2021. "How Complementors Benefit from Taking Competition to the System Level," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(8), pages 5106-5123, August.
    12. Matsui, Kenji, 2024. "Should competing suppliers with dual-channel supply chains adopt agency selling in an e-commerce platform?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 312(2), pages 587-604.
    13. Mark J. Tremblay, 2020. "The Limits of Marketplace Fee Discrimination," Working Papers 20-10, NET Institute.
    14. Stylianos Despotakis & Isa Hafalir & R. Ravi & Amin Sayedi, 2017. "Expertise in Online Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(11), pages 3895-3910, November.
    15. Thomas Clauss & Peter Harengel & Marianne Hock, 2019. "The perception of value of platform-based business models in the sharing economy: determining the drivers of user loyalty," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 605-634, June.
    16. Haibing Gao & Subodha Kumar & Yinliang (Ricky) Tan & Huazhong Zhao, 2022. "Socialize More, Pay Less: Randomized Field Experiments on Social Pricing," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(3), pages 935-953, September.
    17. Johannes Muthers & Sebastian Wismer, 2012. "Why Do Platforms Charge Proportional Fees? Commitment and Seller Participation," Working Papers 115, Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE).
    18. Li, Xiang, 2020. "Reducing channel costs by investing in smart supply chain technologies," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    19. Lingling Zhang & Doug J. Chung, 2020. "Price Bargaining and Competition in Online Platforms: An Empirical Analysis of the Daily Deal Market," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(4), pages 687-706, July.
    20. He, Bo & Mirchandani, Prakash & Shen, Qichao & Yang, Guang, 2021. "How should local Brick-and-Mortar retailers offer delivery service in a pandemic World? Self-building Vs. O2O platform," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).

    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:inm:orisre:v:33:y:2022:i:4:p:1287-1302. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.