IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ems/eureri/98970.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Information Transparency in B2B Auction Markets: The Role of Winner Identity Disclosure

Author

Listed:
  • Lu, Y.
  • Gupta, A.
  • Ketter, W.
  • van Heck, H.W.G.M.

Abstract

We study the impact of information transparency in B2B auctions. Specifically, we measure the effect of concealing winners’ identities on auction outcomes using a large-scale, quasi-natural field experiment. Contrary to the conventional wisdom that “the more information, the better,” we find that concealing winners’ identities leads to a significant increase in price by approximately 6%, and such effect holds true across both online and offline channels as well as different types of bidders. We further explore the mechanism that drives the observed effect. The empirical analysis suggests that the price increase may primarily stem from the disruption of imitative bidding which relies on the identification of fellow competitors. Our findings have important implications for the design of auction markets, especially multi-channel B2B markets.

Suggested Citation

  • Lu, Y. & Gupta, A. & Ketter, W. & van Heck, H.W.G.M., 2017. "Information Transparency in B2B Auction Markets: The Role of Winner Identity Disclosure," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2017-006-LIS, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
  • Handle: RePEc:ems:eureri:98970
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repub.eur.nl/pub/98970/ERS-2017-006-LIS_01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Susan Athey & Jonathan Levin & Enrique Seira, 2011. "Comparing open and Sealed Bid Auctions: Evidence from Timber Auctions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 126(1), pages 207-257.
    2. Bajari, Patrick & Yeo, Jungwon, 2009. "Auction design and tacit collusion in FCC spectrum auctions," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 90-100, June.
    3. Harry J. Paarsch & Stephen G. Donald & Jacques Robert, 2006. "An empirical model of the multi-unit, sequential, clock auction," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(8), pages 1221-1247.
    4. Cramton, Peter & Schwartz, Jesse A, 2000. "Collusive Bidding: Lessons from the FCC Spectrum Auctions," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 229-252, May.
    5. Ockenfels, Axel & Selten, Reinhard, 2005. "Impulse balance equilibrium and feedback in first price auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 155-170, April.
    6. Sherstyuk, Katerina & Dulatre, Jeremy, 2008. "Market performance and collusion in sequential and simultaneous multi-object auctions: Evidence from an ascending auctions experiment," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 557-572, March.
    7. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    8. Timothy N. Cason & Karthik N. Kannan & Ralph Siebert, 2011. "An Experimental Study of Information Revelation Policies in Sequential Auctions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(4), pages 667-688, April.
    9. Milgrom, Paul & Weber, Robert J., 1982. "The value of information in a sealed-bid auction," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 105-114, June.
    10. Martin Bichler & Alok Gupta & Wolfgang Ketter, 2010. "Research Commentary ---Designing Smart Markets," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 688-699, December.
    11. Gerard J. van den Berg & Jan C. van Ours & Menno P. Pradhan, 2001. "The Declining Price Anomaly in Dutch Dutch Rose Auctions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(4), pages 1055-1062, September.
    12. Steven Tadelis & Florian Zettelmeyer, 2015. "Information Disclosure as a Matching Mechanism: Theory and Evidence from a Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(2), pages 886-905, February.
    13. Robert Zeithammer, 2007. "Research Note--Strategic Bid-Shading and Sequential Auctioning with Learning from Past Prices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(9), pages 1510-1519, September.
    14. Motty Perry & Philip J. Reny, 1999. "On The Failure of the Linkage Principle in Multi-Unit Auctions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 67(4), pages 895-900, July.
    15. Nicola Lacetera & Bradley J. Larsen & Devin G. Pope & Justin R. Sydnor, 2016. "Bid Takers or Market Makers? The Effect of Auctioneers on Auction Outcome," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 195-229, November.
    16. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2004. "How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 119(1), pages 249-275.
    17. Schlag, Karl H., 1998. "Why Imitate, and If So, How?, : A Boundedly Rational Approach to Multi-armed Bandits," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 130-156, January.
    18. Gopal Das Varma, 2002. "Standard Auctions with Identity-Dependent Externalities," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(4), pages 689-708, Winter.
    19. Alberto Abadie, 2005. "Semiparametric Difference-in-Differences Estimators," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 72(1), pages 1-19.
    20. Alvin E. Roth, 2002. "The Economist as Engineer: Game Theory, Experimentation, and Computation as Tools for Design Economics," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(4), pages 1341-1378, July.
    21. Alan Beggs & Kathryn Graddy, 1997. "Declining Values and the Afternoon Effect: Evidence from Art Auctions," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 28(3), pages 544-565, Autumn.
    22. Gerd Gigerenzer & Reinhard Selten (ed.), 2002. "Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262571641, January.
    23. Philippe Jehiel & Benny Moldovanu, 1996. "Strategic Nonparticipation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(1), pages 84-98, Spring.
    24. Theo Offerman, 2002. "Efficiency in Auctions with Private and Common Values: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(3), pages 625-643, June.
    25. Reinhard Selten & Klaus Abbink & Ricarda Cox, 2005. "Learning Direction Theory and the Winner’s Curse," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(1), pages 5-20, April.
    26. Robert C. Marshall & Leslie M. Marx, 2009. "The Vulnerability of Auctions to Bidder Collusion," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 124(2), pages 883-910.
    27. Sung-Jin Cho & Harry J. Paarsch & John Rust, 2014. "Is the ‘Linkage Principle’ Valid? Evidence from the Field," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(2), pages 346-375, June.
    28. L. Elisa Celis & Gregory Lewis & Markus Mobius & Hamid Nazerzadeh, 2014. "Buy-It-Now or Take-a-Chance: Price Discrimination Through Randomized Auctions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(12), pages 2927-2948, December.
    29. Jorgen W. Weibull, 1997. "Evolutionary Game Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262731215, January.
    30. David H. Autor, 2003. "Outsourcing at Will: The Contribution of Unjust Dismissal Doctrine to the Growth of Employment Outsourcing," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 21(1), pages 1-42, January.
    31. McAfee R. Preston & Vincent Daniel, 1993. "The Declining Price Anomaly," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 191-212, June.
    32. Kagel, John H. & Levin, Dan, 1986. "The Winner's Curse and Public Information in Common Value Auctions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(5), pages 894-920, December.
    33. Eli M. Snir & Lorin M. Hitt, 2003. "Costly Bidding in Online Markets for IT Services," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(11), pages 1504-1520, November.
    34. Thomas D. Jeitschko, 1998. "Learning in Sequential Auctions," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 65(1), pages 98-112, July.
    35. repec:hhs:iuiwop:487 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Auction design; field experiment; information transparency; identity disclosure; sequential auctions;

    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:ems:eureri:98970. 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: (RePub). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/erimanl.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.