IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormsom/v25y2023i2p704-718.html

Precommitments in Two-Sided Market Competition

Author

Listed:
  • Ming Hu

    (Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3E6, Canada)

  • Yan Liu

    (Department of Logistics and Maritime Studies, Faculty of Business, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong)

Abstract

Problem definition : We consider a two-sided market competition problem where two platforms, such as Uber and Lyft, compete on both supply and demand sides and study the impact of precommitments in a variety of practically motivated instruments on the equilibrium outcomes. Academic/practical relevance: We extend a set of classic oligopoly pricing results to account for two-sided competition under demand uncertainty. Methodology: We investigate multi-stage competition games. Results: We start with a sufficiently low demand uncertainty. First, we show that a precommitment made on the less competitive (demand or supply) side (on price or wage) has a less intense outcome than no commitment (i.e., spot-market price and wage competition). Then we show that, somewhat surprisingly, if the competition intensities of both sides are sufficiently close, the commission precommitment, where the platforms first compete in setting their commission rates and then their prices, is less profitable than no precommitment at all, and vice versa. Furthermore, we show that the capacity precommitment, in which the platforms first commit to a matching capacity and then set price and wage simultaneously subject to the precommitted capacity, leads to the most profitable outcome of all competition modes and extends the celebrated Kreps-Scheinkman equivalency to the two-sided market (without demand uncertainty). Then we extend the comparisons of various competition modes to account for a relatively high demand uncertainty. We show that the comparison between the spot-market price and wage competition and the commission precommitment stays the same as that with a sufficiently low demand uncertainty. In addition, the more flexible competition modes, such as no commitment and commission precommitment, benefit from higher demand uncertainty (with a fixed mean demand) because of their operational flexibility in response to the market changes. Further, a relatively high demand uncertainty may undermine or enhance the value of the wage precommitment, as opposed to no commitment. Finally, we also account for platforms with asymmetric parameters and matching friction and find that our main insights tend to be robust. Managerial implications : Our results caution platforms that a precommitment to the wrong instrument can be worse than no commitment at all. Moreover, the regulation of classifying gig workers as employees, despite many of its benefits to workers, may lead to a less competitive market outcome and, surprisingly, hurt gig workers by paying them lower wages.

Suggested Citation

  • Ming Hu & Yan Liu, 2023. "Precommitments in Two-Sided Market Competition," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 704-718, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:25:y:2023:i:2:p:704-718
    DOI: 10.1287/msom.2022.1173
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/msom.2022.1173
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/msom.2022.1173?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. Ming Hu, 2021. "From the Classics to New Tunes: A Neoclassical View on Sharing Economy and Innovative Marketplaces," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(6), pages 1668-1685, June.
    2. Reynolds, Stanley S. & Wilson, Bart J., 2000. "Bertrand-Edgeworth Competition, Demand Uncertainty, and Asymmetric Outcomes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 122-141, May.
    3. Amr Farahat & Woonghee Tim Huh & Hongmin Li, 2019. "On the Relationship Between Quantity Precommitment and Cournot Games," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(1), pages 109-122, January.
    4. Nirvikar Singh & Xavier Vives, 1984. "Price and Quantity Competition in a Differentiated Duopoly," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(4), pages 546-554, Winter.
    5. Caillaud, Bernard & Jullien, Bruno, 2003. "Chicken & Egg: Competition among Intermediation Service Providers," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(2), pages 309-328, Summer.
    6. Jean-Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2003. "Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(4), pages 990-1029, June.
    7. Fernando Bernstein & Gregory A. DeCroix & N. Bora Keskin, 2021. "Competition Between Two-Sided Platforms Under Demand and Supply Congestion Effects," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1043-1061, September.
    8. Vives, Xavier, 1986. "Commitment, flexibility and market outcomes," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 217-229, June.
    9. Auyon Siddiq & Terry A. Taylor, 2022. "Ride-Hailing Platforms: Competition and Autonomous Vehicles," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 1511-1528, May.
    10. Zhoupeng Jack Zhang & Ming Hu & Jianfu Wang, 2022. "Implications of Worker Classification in On-Demand Economy," Lecture Notes in Operations Research, in: Robin Qiu & Wai Kin Victor Chan & Weiwei Chen & Youakim Badr & Canrong Zhang (ed.), City, Society, and Digital Transformation, chapter 0, pages 407-423, Springer.
    11. Jiayi Joey Yu & Christopher S. Tang & Zuo-Jun Max Shen & Xiqun Michael Chen, 2020. "A Balancing Act of Regulating On-Demand Ride Services," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(7), pages 2975-2992, July.
    12. Vives, Xavier, 1985. "On the efficiency of Bertrand and Cournot equilibria with product differentation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 166-175, June.
    13. Guofu Tan & Junjie Zhou, 2021. "The Effects of Competition and Entry in Multi-sided Markets," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 88(2), pages 1002-1030.
    14. 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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zhu, Xingzhen & Li, Li & Li, Jing, 2025. "To offer or not to offer? Bullet screen strategies for competing video platforms with vertical differentiation," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    2. Li, Xiang & Wang, Meiqi, 2025. "Homing strategies for asymmetric sellers on differentiated platforms," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).

    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. Xiaokai Wu & Li Jiang & Xuan Zhao, 2025. "Managing Quality on Two-Sided Platforms in the Presence of Provider Competition," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 27(5), pages 1532-1550, September.
    2. Zhen Lian & Garrett van Ryzin, 2025. "Capturing the Benefits of Autonomous Vehicles in Ride Hailing: The Role of Market Configuration," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(7), pages 5491-5510, July.
    3. Lambertini, Luca, 1997. "Prisoners' Dilemma in Duopoly (Super)Games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 181-191, November.
    4. Mehmet Ekmekci & Alexander White & Lingxuan Wu, 2025. "Platform Competition and Interoperability: The Net Fee Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(10), pages 8842-8864, October.
    5. Mo, Dong & Wang, Hai & Cai, Zeen & Szeto, W.Y. & Chen, Xiqun (Michael), 2024. "Modeling and regulating a ride-sourcing market integrated with vehicle rental services," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    6. Chen, Ying-Ju & Zenou, Yves & Zhou, Junjie, 2022. "The impact of network topology and market structure on pricing," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Robert A Ritz, 2024. "Does competition increase pass‐through?," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 55(1), pages 140-165, March.
    9. Martin Peitz, 2024. "The Economic Theory of Two-Sided Platforms," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2024_584, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    10. Carrillo, Juan D. & Tan, Guofu, 2021. "Platform competition with complementary products," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    11. Mikhail Klimenko & Jingwen Qu, 2023. "Global digital platforms, technology transfer and foreign direct investment policies in two‐sided markets," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 61(3), pages 584-604, July.
    12. Heid, Benedikt & Stähler, Frank, 2024. "Structural gravity and the gains from trade under imperfect competition: Quantifying the effects of the European Single Market," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    13. Manipushpak Mitra & Rupayan Pal & Arindam Paul & P. M. Sharada, 2020. "Equilibrium Coexistence of Public and Private Firms and the Plausibility of Price Competition," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 176(2), pages 217-242.
    14. Li, Xiaonan & Li, Xiangyong & Wang, Hai & Shi, Junxin & Aneja, Y.P., 2022. "Supply regulation under the exclusion policy in a ride-sourcing market," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 69-94.
    15. Geng Sun & Yeongin Kim & Yinliang (Ricky) Tan & Geoffrey G. Parker, 2024. "Dinner at Your Doorstep: Service Innovation via the Gig Economy on Food Delivery Platforms," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(3), pages 1216-1234, September.
    16. Etro, Federico, 2016. "Research in economics and industrial organization," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 511-517.
    17. Jean J. Gabszewicz & Jacques-François Thisse, 2000. "Microeconomic theories of imperfect competition," Cahiers d'Économie Politique, Programme National Persée, vol. 37(1), pages 47-99.
    18. Martin Peitz, 2025. "Governance and Regulation of Platforms," Springer Books, in: Claude Ménard & Mary M. Shirley (ed.), Handbook of New Institutional Economics, edition 0, chapter 23, pages 565-593, Springer.
    19. Lei Bao & Yulin Zhang & Vitor Miguel Ribeiro, 2018. "Observability of Incentive Contract and Platform Competition," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(2), pages 154-180, June.
    20. Jeon, Doh-Shin & Lefouili, Yassine & Li, Yaxin & Simcoe, Timothy, 2023. "Network Centrality and Device Ecosystems," TSE Working Papers 23-1468, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Jan 2025.

    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:inm:ormsom:v:25:y:2023:i:2:p:704-718. 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.