IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Pricing Access Services

Listed author(s):
  • Skander Essegaier


    (The Stern School of Business, New York University, 44 West Fourth Street, Room 8-85, New York, New York 10012)

  • Sunil Gupta


    (Columbia Business School, Columbia University, Uris Hall, Room 508, 3022 Broadway, New York, New York 10027)

  • Z. John Zhang


    (University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School, 3620 Locust Walk, Suite 1400, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-6371)

Registered author(s):

    Many established industries, such as the online service industry, the telecommunication industry, or the fitness club industry, are access service industries. When using services in these industries, consumers pay for the privilege of accessing the firm's facilities but do not acquire any right to the facility itself. A firm's pricing decisions in access industries frequently come down to a simple choice among pricing, pricing, or pricing. However, it is not so simple for firms in those industries to make this choice. Access service firms typically face a mix of consumers who have intrinsically different usage rates. A key characteristic of access service firms, however, is that the cost of providing an additional minute of usage is typically negligible, as long as the firm has the necessary capacity to serve its customers. Service capacity, which corresponds to the total available time on a firm's system, is often limited. In this paper, we show that service capacity and consumer usage heterogeneity are two important factors that determine a firm's optimal choice. We develop a model that incorporates these two salient characteristics shared by access industries and study what determines a firm's choice among the three alternative pricing structures ( pricing, pricing, or pricing). Our analysis shows that, in the presence of consumer usage heterogeneity, service capacity mediates a firm's optimal choice in a complex, yet predictable way. A firm's choice also hinges on whether heavy or light users are more valuable in terms of their willingness-to-pay on a per-unit-capacity basis. The presence of both consumer usage heterogeneity and capacity constraints prompts a firm to choose its pricing structure to attract a desired customer mix and to price discriminate. As a result, two-part tariff pricing is not always optimal in access industries, and a firm's pricing structure can vary in a complex way with the interaction of those two factors. Specifically, we show that when light users are more valuable, a firm may use a two-part tariff or a flat fee, depending on whether the firm is constrained by its service capacity, but never charge a usage price alone or offer any signing bonus (a negative flat fee or a flat payment to customers). When heavy users are more valuable, a firm may choose to set a usage price, a signing bonus plus a usage price, or flat fee. Interestingly, regardless of whether heavy or light users are more valuable in an access service industry, only flat rate pricing is a sustainable pricing structure once the industry has developed sufficient excess capacity. We also show that the optimal pricing strategy in access industries can have some intriguing, nonintuitive implications that have not been explored elsewhere. For instance, when the industry capacity is unevenly distributed between competing firms, the large-capacity firm may well be advised to increase, rather than to decrease, its price to accommodate the small firm. It would be too costly and too tactless for the large firm to do otherwise. In fact, the strategy of accommodation calls on the larger firm to retreat in both light and heavy user markets and leave more of its capacity idle and more of the market demand unmet when the small firm's capacity (hence, the industry capacity) increases. This implies that incremental policy measures that encourage the growth of smaller companies in the presence of a large company can be welfare-decreasing because the growth of smaller firm can force the retreat of a large company at the expense of market coverage. Today, services account for two-thirds to three-quarters of the GNP, not only in the United States but also in many industrial countries. Access industries are growing rapidly to exert profound impact on today's economy. However, service pricing in general and pricing access services in particular have not received adequate attention in the literature. In this paper, we take the first step in understanding how capacity constraints and consumer usage heterogeneity mediate the choice of pricing structures in both monopolistic and competitive contexts.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by INFORMS in its journal Marketing Science.

    Volume (Year): 21 (2002)
    Issue (Month): 2 (June)
    Pages: 139-159

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:21:y:2002:i:2:p:139-159
    Contact details of provider: Postal:
    7240 Parkway Drive, Suite 300, Hanover, MD 21076 USA

    Phone: +1-443-757-3500
    Fax: 443-757-3515
    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Jean-Pierre Benoit & Vijay Krishna, 1987. "Dynamic Duopoly: Prices and Quantities," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 54(1), pages 23-35.
    2. Stole, Lars A, 1995. "Nonlinear Pricing and Oligopoly," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(4), pages 529-562, Winter.
    3. Armstrong, Mark & Vickers, John, 2001. "Competitive Price Discrimination," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(4), pages 579-605, Winter.
    4. Calem, Paul S. & Spulber, Daniel F., 1984. "Multiproduct two part tariffs," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 105-115, June.
    5. Hayes, Beth, 1987. "Competition and Two-Part Tariffs," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60(1), pages 41-54, January.
    6. Jean-Charles Rochet & Lars A. Stole, 2002. "Nonlinear Pricing with Random Participation," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(1), pages 277-311.
    7. Richard Schmalensee, 1981. "Monopolistic Two-Part Pricing Arrangements," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 12(2), pages 445-466, Autumn.
    8. Peters, Michael, 1984. "Bertrand Equilibrium with Capacity Constraints and Restricted Mobility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1117-1127, September.
    9. Walter Y. Oi, 1971. "A Disneyland Dilemma: Two-Part Tariffs for a Mickey Mouse Monopoly," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 85(1), pages 77-96.
    10. Maggi, Giovanni, 1996. "Strategic Trade Policies with Endogenous Mode of Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(1), pages 237-258, March.
    11. Suzanne Scotchmer, 1985. "Two-Tier Pricing of Shared Facilities in a Free-Entry Equilibrium," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(4), pages 456-472, Winter.
    12. David M. Kreps & Jose A. Scheinkman, 1983. "Quantity Precommitment and Bertrand Competition Yield Cournot Outcomes," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 14(2), pages 326-337, Autumn.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:21:y:2002:i:2:p:139-159. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.