IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ecinqu/v41y2003i2p208-223.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Automated Pricing Rules in Electronic Posted Offer Markets

Author

Listed:
  • Cary A. Deck
  • Bart J. Wilson

Abstract

Internet markets are heralded as enhancing efficiency by providing buyers and sellers with an abundance of information. In these electronic markets, firms have the opportunity to employ "pricebots," computerized algorithms that automatically adjust prices to prevailing market conditions. This article uses laboratory methods to examine the potential market impact of the endogenous selection of three automated pricing algorithms: undercutting, low-price matching, and trigger pricing. We find that the undercutting algorithm leads to prices similar to the game-theoretic prediction. Low-price matching generates significantly higher prices, and trigger pricing results in market prices below the game-theoretic prediction. Copyright 2003, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Cary A. Deck & Bart J. Wilson, 2003. "Automated Pricing Rules in Electronic Posted Offer Markets," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 41(2), pages 208-223, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ecinqu:v:41:y:2003:i:2:p:208-223
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ei/cbg002
    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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Douglas D. Davis & Oleg Korenok, 2009. "Posted Offer Markets In Near‐Continuous Time: An Experimental Investigation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 47(3), pages 449-466, July.
    2. Taylor Jaworskiy & Erik O. Kimbrough, 2012. "An Experimental Examination of Asset Pricing Under Market Uncertainty," Discussion Papers dp12-21, Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University.
    3. Jose Apesteguia & Martin Dufwenberg & Reinhard Selten, 2007. "Blowing the Whistle," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 31(1), pages 143-166, April.
    4. Henrik Orzen, 2008. "Counterintuitive number effects in experimental oligopolies," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(4), pages 390-401, December.
    5. Mago, Shakun Datta & Pate, Jennifer G., 2009. "An experimental examination of competitor-based price matching guarantees," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 342-360, May.
    6. Enrique Fatás & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Juan Máñez & Gerardo Sabater-Grande, 2005. "Pro-competitive Price Beating Guarantees: Experimental Evidence," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 26(1), pages 115-136, November.
    7. Mongoljin Batsaikhan & Norovsambuu Tumennasan, 2018. "Output Decisions and Price Matching: Theory and Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(8), pages 3609-3624, August.
    8. Enrique Fatás & Nikolaos Georgantz & Juan A. Máñez & Gerardo Sabater, 2013. "Experimental duopolies under price guarantees," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(1), pages 15-35, January.
    9. Deck, Cary & Gu, Jingping, 2012. "Price increasing competition? Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 730-740.
    10. Douglas Davis & Oleg Korenok & Robert Reilly, 2009. "Re-matching, information and sequencing effects in posted offer markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(1), pages 65-86, March.
    11. Cary A. Deck & Bart J. Wilson, 2005. "Auction Markets for Evaluations," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(1), pages 42-62, July.
    12. Subhasish Dugar & Todd Sorensen, 2006. "Hassle Costs, Price-Matching Guarantees and Price Competition: An Experiment," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 28(4), pages 359-378, June.
    13. Enrique Fatas & Juan Mañez, 2007. "Are low-price promises collusion guarantees? An experimental test of price matching policies," Spanish Economic Review, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 9(1), pages 59-77, March.
    14. Rhodes, Andrew & Johnson, Justin & Wildenbeest, Matthijs, 2020. "Platform Design When Sellers Use Pricing Algorithms," CEPR Discussion Papers 15504, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Justin P. Johnson & Andrew Rhodes & Matthijs Wildenbeest, 2023. "Platform Design When Sellers Use Pricing Algorithms," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 91(5), pages 1841-1879, September.
    16. Taylor Jaworski & Erik O. Kimbrough, 2016. "Bubbles, Crashes, And Endogenous Uncertainty In Linked Asset And Product Markets," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 57(1), pages 155-176, February.

    More about this item

    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:oup:ecinqu:v:41:y:2003:i:2:p:208-223. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/weaaaea.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.