IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/miceco/v11y2023i2p235-245.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fake Reviews in Online Platforms and the Effort to Fight Them

Author

Listed:
  • Juan Pedro Aznar-Alarcón
  • Oriol Anguera-Torrell

Abstract

This paper proposes a model in which oligopolistic firms selling through an online platform can invest in creating positive fake reviews to increase their reputation and negative ones to harm that of their competitors. Therefore, oligopolistic firms’ demand depends on the amount of positive and negative fake reviews. In this context, the online platform optimally chooses the effort to fight fake reviews and the fee it charges to online sellers for each transaction. The novelty of the model lies in incorporating the online platform’s role in fighting fake reviews and its interplay with sellers’ strategic behaviour. The model’s main result is that the platform’s effort has a positive impact not only on consumers’ surplus but also on the oligopolistic firms’ profitability. In its turn, the platform’s optimal effort depends on exogenous parameters, including the demand’s sensitivity to fake reviews. JEL Classifications: D21, D43, L13, L81

Suggested Citation

  • Juan Pedro Aznar-Alarcón & Oriol Anguera-Torrell, 2023. "Fake Reviews in Online Platforms and the Effort to Fight Them," Studies in Microeconomics, , vol. 11(2), pages 235-245, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:miceco:v:11:y:2023:i:2:p:235-245
    DOI: 10.1177/23210222211051470
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23210222211051470
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/23210222211051470?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. Keisuke Hattori & Keisaku Higashida, 2012. "Misleading advertising in duopoly," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(3), pages 1154-1187, August.
    2. Paolo Garella & Emmanuel Petrakis, 2008. "Minimum quality standards and consumers’ information," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 36(2), pages 283-302, August.
    3. Hamilton, Stephen F., 2009. "Informative advertising in differentiated oligopoly markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 60-69, January.
    4. Maria Alipranti & Evangelos Mitrokostas & Emmanuel Petrakis, 2013. "Comparative versus Informative Advertising in Oligopolistic Markets," Working Papers 1301, University of Crete, Department of Economics.
    5. Boris Knapp, 2021. "Fake Reviews and Naive Consumers," Vienna Economics Papers 2102, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    6. Lirong Chen & Wenli Li & Hao Chen & Shidao Geng, 2019. "Detection of Fake Reviews: Analysis of Sellers’ Manipulation Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-13, September.
    7. Erickson, Gary M., 2009. "An oligopoly model of dynamic advertising competition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(1), pages 374-388, August.
    8. Boris Knapp, 2021. "Fake Reviews and Naive Consumers," Vienna Economics Papers vie2102, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    9. Matsumura, Toshihiro & Sunada, Takeaki, 2013. "Advertising competition in a mixed oligopoly," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 183-185.
    10. Theodoros Lappas & Gaurav Sabnis & Georgios Valkanas, 2016. "The Impact of Fake Reviews on Online Visibility: A Vulnerability Assessment of the Hotel Industry," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 940-961, December.
    11. Michael Luca & Georgios Zervas, 2016. "Fake It Till You Make It: Reputation, Competition, and Yelp Review Fraud," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(12), pages 3412-3427, December.
    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. Hattori, Keisuke & Higashida, Keisaku, 2014. "Misleading advertising and minimum quality standards," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 1-14.
    2. Malcolm Brady, 2021. "A Game-Theoretic Model of Strategic Interaction Using Advertising: Simulating the Evolution of the Cournot Nash Equilibrium under Different Competitive Scenarios," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-16, November.
    3. Zhuang, Mengzhou & Cui, Geng & Peng, Ling, 2018. "Manufactured opinions: The effect of manipulating online product reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 24-35.
    4. Hung-Pin Shih & Pei-Chen Sung, 2021. "Addressing the Review-Based Learning and Private Information Approaches to Foster Platform Continuance," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 649-661, June.
    5. Sharma, Ajay, 2019. "Misleading Advertising in Mixed Markets: Consumer-orientation and welfare outcomes," MPRA Paper 96189, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Ku, Hsuan-Hsuan & Shang, Rong-An & Fu, Yi-Fan, 2021. "Social learning effects of complaint handling on social media: Self-construal as a moderator," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    7. Cheng Zhao & Chong Alex Wang, 2023. "A cross-site comparison of online review manipulation using Benford’s law," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 365-406, March.
    8. Xiaohui Zhang & Qianzhou Du & Zhongju Zhang, 2022. "A theory‐driven machine learning system for financial disinformation detection," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(8), pages 3160-3179, August.
    9. Cuixia Jiang & Jun Zhu & Qifa Xu, 2022. "Dissecting click farming on the Taobao platform in China via PU learning and weighted logistic regression," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 157-176, March.
    10. Ishita Chakraborty & Minkyung Kim & K. Sudhir, 2019. "Attribute Sentiment Scoring With Online Text Reviews : Accounting for Language Structure and Attribute Self-Selection," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2176, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    11. Harrison-Walker, L. Jean & Jiang, Ying, 2023. "Suspicion of online product reviews as fake: Cues and consequences," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    12. Uttara M. Ananthakrishnan & Beibei Li & Michael D. Smith, 2020. "A Tangled Web: Should Online Review Portals Display Fraudulent Reviews?," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 950-971, September.
    13. Tim Kollmer & Andreas Eckhardt & Victoria Reibenspiess, 2022. "Explaining consumer suspicion: insights of a vignette study on online product reviews," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(3), pages 1221-1238, September.
    14. Ginger Zhe Jin & Zhentong Lu & Xiaolu Zhou & Chunxiao Li, 2020. "The Effects of Government Licensing on E-commerce: Evidence from Alibaba," NBER Working Papers 27884, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Guo, Qiaozhen & Chen, Ying-Ju & Huang, Wei, 2022. "Dynamic pricing of new experience products with dual-channel social learning and online review manipulations," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    16. Warut Khern-am-nuai & Karthik Kannan & Hossein Ghasemkhani, 2018. "Extrinsic versus Intrinsic Rewards for Contributing Reviews in an Online Platform," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 871-892, December.
    17. Hui Zhao & Xiaoyuan Wang & Debing Ni & Kevin W. Li, 2023. "The Quality-Signaling Role of Manipulated Consumer Reviews," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 503-536, June.
    18. Li, Yuanshuo & Zhang, Zili & Pedersen, Susanne & Liu, Xudong & Zhang, Ziqiong, 2023. "The influence of relative popularity on negative fake reviews: A case study on restaurant reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    19. Plotkina, Daria & Munzel, Andreas & Pallud, Jessie, 2020. "Illusions of truth—Experimental insights into human and algorithmic detections of fake online reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 511-523.
    20. Koukova, Nevena T. & Wang, Rebecca Jen-Hui & Isaac, Mathew S., 2023. "“If you loved our product”: Do conditional review requests harm retailer loyalty?," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 85-101.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Fake reviews; online reputation; online platforms; oligopolistic competition;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D21 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Theory
    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L81 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Retail and Wholesale Trade; e-Commerce

    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:sae:miceco:v:11:y:2023:i:2:p:235-245. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.