IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bon/boncrc/crctr224_2024_509.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Harvesting Ratings

Author

Listed:
  • Johannes Johnen
  • Robin Ng

Abstract

Evidence suggests lower prices lead to better ratings, but better ratings induce firms to charge higher prices in the future. We model that consumers are only willing to make the effort to rate a seller if this seller provides a sufficient value-for-money. Using this model, we explore how firms use prices to impact their own ratings. We show that firms harvest ratings: they offer lower prices in early periods to trigger consumers to leave a good rating in order to earn larger profits in the future. Because especially low-quality firms harvest ratings, harvesting makes ratings less-informative about quality. Based on this mechanism, (i) we argue that rating harvesting causes rating inflation; (ii) we show that a marketplace that facilitates ratings (e.g. through reminders, one-click ratings etc.) may get more ratings, but also less-informative ratings; (iii) a marketplace that screens the quality of sellers makes ratings less-informative if the screening is insufficient. Counter to the conventional wisdom that consumers benefit from ratings via the information they transmit, we show that consumers prefer somewhat, but never fully informative ratings. Nonetheless consumers prefer more-informative ratings than average sellers. We apply these results to characterise when a two-sided platform wants to facilitate ratings, and argue that efforts of major platforms to facilitate ratings did not just lead to less-informative ratings, but also shifted surplus from consumers to sellers.

Suggested Citation

  • Johannes Johnen & Robin Ng, 2024. "Harvesting Ratings," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2024_509, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:bon:boncrc:crctr224_2024_509
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.crctr224.de/research/discussion-papers/archive/dp509
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luis M.B. Cabral, 2000. "Stretching Firm and Brand Reputation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(4), pages 658-673, Winter.
    2. Apostolos Filippas & John J. Horton & Joseph M. Golden, 2022. "Reputation Inflation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(4), pages 733-745, July.
    3. Luís Cabral & Lingfang (Ivy) Li, 2015. "A Dollar for Your Thoughts: Feedback-Conditional Rebates on eBay," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(9), pages 2052-2063, September.
    4. Casner, Ben, 2020. "Seller curation in platforms," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    5. Yan Chen & F. Maxwell Harper & Joseph Konstan & Sherry Xin Li, 2010. "Social Comparisons and Contributions to Online Communities: A Field Experiment on MovieLens," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1358-1398, September.
    6. Andrei Hagiu & Bruno Jullien, 2011. "Why do intermediaries divert search?," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 42(2), pages 337-362, June.
    7. Cho, In-Koo & Sobel, Joel, 1990. "Strategic stability and uniqueness in signaling games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 381-413, April.
    8. Chris Nosko & Steven Tadelis, 2015. "The Limits of Reputation in Platform Markets: An Empirical Analysis and Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 20830, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Nelson Granados & Alok Gupta & Robert J. Kauffman, 2012. "Online and Offline Demand and Price Elasticities: Evidence from the Air Travel Industry," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 164-181, March.
    10. Devesh Raval, 2020. "Whose Voice Do We Hear in the Marketplace? Evidence from Consumer Complaining Behavior," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(1), pages 168-187, January.
    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. Johnen, Johannes & Ng, Robin, 2023. "Ratings and Reciprocity," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2023006, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    2. Yan Chen & Peter Cramton & John A. List & Axel Ockenfels, 2021. "Market Design, Human Behavior, and Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5317-5348, September.
    3. Xiang Hui & Meng Liu & Tat Chan, 2023. "Targeted incentives, broad impacts: Evidence from an E-commerce platform," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 493-517, December.
    4. Xiang Hui & Meng Liu & Tat Chan, 2022. "Targeted Incentives, Broad Impacts: Evidence from an E-commerce Platform," CESifo Working Paper Series 9894, CESifo.
    5. Foster, Joshua, 2022. "How rating mechanisms shape user search, quality inference and engagement in online platforms: Experimental evidence," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 791-807.
    6. Tobias Gesche, 2022. "Reference‐price shifts and customer antagonism: Evidence from reviews for online auctions," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 558-578, August.
    7. Lingfang (Ivy) Li & Steven Tadelis & Xiaolan Zhou, 2020. "Buying reputation as a signal of quality: Evidence from an online marketplace," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 51(4), pages 965-988, December.
    8. Gesche, Tobias, 2018. "Reference Price Shifts and Customer Antagonism: Evidence from Reviews for Online Auctions," VfS Annual Conference 2018 (Freiburg, Breisgau): Digital Economy 181650, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    9. Weijia (Daisy) Dai & Ginger Jin & Jungmin Lee & Michael Luca, 2018. "Aggregation of consumer ratings: an application to Yelp.com," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 289-339, September.
    10. Zvika Neeman & Aniko Öry & Jungju Yu, 2019. "The benefit of collective reputation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 50(4), pages 787-821, December.
    11. Liran Einav & Chiara Farronato & Jonathan Levin, 2016. "Peer-to-Peer Markets," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 8(1), pages 615-635, October.
    12. Casner, Ben, 2020. "Seller curation in platforms," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    13. Nikhil Garg & Ramesh Johari, 2021. "Designing Informative Rating Systems: Evidence from an Online Labor Market," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 589-605, May.
    14. Guy Aridor & Duarte Goncalves & Daniel Kluver & Ruoyan Kong & Joseph Konstan, 2022. "The Economics of Recommender Systems: Evidence from a Field Experiment on MovieLens," Papers 2211.14219, arXiv.org.
    15. Gary E. Bolton & David J. Kusterer & Johannes Mans, 2019. "Inflated Reputations: Uncertainty, Leniency, and Moral Wiggle Room in Trader Feedback Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(11), pages 5371-5391, November.
    16. Ben Casner, 2021. "Learning while shopping: an experimental investigation into the effect of learning on consumer search," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 238-273, March.
    17. Martin Peitz, 2023. "Governance and Regulation of Platforms," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2023_480, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    18. Huang, Yangguang & Xie, Yu, 2023. "Search algorithm, repetitive information, and sales on online platforms," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    19. Jun Li & Serguei Netessine, 2020. "Higher Market Thickness Reduces Matching Rate in Online Platforms: Evidence from a Quasiexperiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 271-289, January.
    20. Muxin Li, 2023. "Do Lower Search Costs Benefit Intermediaries?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 63(3), pages 373-405, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Rating and reviews; digital economy; reputation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D21 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Theory
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • L10 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:bon:boncrc:crctr224_2024_509. 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: CRC Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.crctr224.de .

    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.