IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/net/wpaper/0812.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Decomposing the Congestion Effect and the Cross-Platform Effect in Two-Sided Networks: A Field Experiment

Author

Abstract

This paper highlights how the provision of information about user participation can serve as a strategic marketing tool for firms seeking to grow two-sided exchange networks. A two-sided exchange network is a business model (such as Ebay or Craiglist) where revenue is generated from persuading people to buy and sell items through that particular exchange. It is not immediately clear whether broadcasting information about the number of sellers will grow further seller participation. On the one hand, a strong rival presence may dissipate payoff (a ``congestion effect''). On the other hand, a large number of rivals may signal high buyer demand (a ``cross-platform effect''). We use field experiment data from a B2B web site that brings together buyers and sellers of used equipment and real estate. Before each seller made a posting request, the web site randomized whether to disclose the number of buyers and/or sellers, and the exact number to disclose. We find that when presented together with the number of buyers, a larger number of sellers makes sellers less likely to list their products, indicating a negative congestion effect. However, when the number of sellers is presented in isolation, its negative impact on entry is significantly reduced, indicating a positive cross-platform effect. Higher buyer search intensity amplifies the moderating role of demand uncertainty. The results suggest that information on the number of users can be an effective tool to grow two-sided networks but should be used strategically. A network can attract more users by advertising dense competition when demand is not transparent, especially in search-intensive markets.

Suggested Citation

  • Catherine Tucker & Juanjuan Zhang, 2008. "Decomposing the Congestion Effect and the Cross-Platform Effect in Two-Sided Networks: A Field Experiment," Working Papers 08-12, NET Institute, revised Oct 2008.
  • Handle: RePEc:net:wpaper:0812
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.netinst.org/Tucker_Zhang_08-12.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yuxin Chen & Jinhong Xie, 2007. "Cross-Market Network Effect with Asymmetric Customer Loyalty: Implications for Competitive Advantage," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 52-66, 01-02.
    2. Otto Toivanen & Michael Waterson, 2005. "Market Structure and Entry: Where's the Beef?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(3), pages 680-699, Autumn.
    3. Mark Armstrong, 2006. "Competition in two‐sided markets," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 668-691, September.
    4. Marion Debruyne & David J. Reibstein, 2005. "Competitor See, Competitor Do: Incumbent Entry in New Market Niches," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(1), pages 55-66, December.
    5. Yuxin Chen & Ganesh Iyer & V. Padmanabhan, 2002. "Referral Infomediaries," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 412-434, May.
    6. Bresnahan, Timothy F & Reiss, Peter C, 1991. "Entry and Competition in Concentrated Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(5), pages 977-1009, October.
    7. Gabor Fath & Miklos Sarvary, 2003. "Adoption Dynamics in Buyer-Side Exchanges," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 305-335, September.
    8. Dudey, Marc, 1990. "Competition by Choice: The Effect of Consumer Search on Firm Location Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1092-1104, December.
    9. Wernerfelt, Birger, 1995. " A Rational Reconstruction of the Compromise Effect: Using Market Data to Infer Utilities," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(4), pages 627-633, March.
    10. Berry, Steven T, 1992. "Estimation of a Model of Entry in the Airline Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(4), pages 889-917, July.
    11. Colin F. Camerer & Teck-Hua Ho & Juin-Kuan Chong, 2004. "A Cognitive Hierarchy Model of Games," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 119(3), pages 861-898.
    12. Steven C. Salop, 1979. "Monopolistic Competition with Outside Goods," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 141-156, Spring.
    13. Günter J. Hitsch, 2006. "An Empirical Model of Optimal Dynamic Product Launch and Exit Under Demand Uncertainty," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 25-50, 01-02.
    14. Chakravarthi Narasimhan & Z. John Zhang, 2000. "Market Entry Strategy Under Firm Heterogeneity and Asymmetric Payoffs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 313-327, November.
    15. Eric D. Gould & B. Peter Pashigian & Canice J. Prendergast, 2005. "Contracts, Externalities, and Incentives in Shopping Malls," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 87(3), pages 411-422, August.
    16. repec:rje:randje:v:37:y:2006:3:p:645-667 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Eric T. Bradlow & Young-Hoon Park, 2007. "Bayesian Estimation of Bid Sequences in Internet Auctions Using a Generalized Record-Breaking Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 218-229, 03-04.
    18. Ting Zhu & Vishal Singh & Anthony J. Dukes, 2005. "Local Competition and Impact of Entry by a Dominant Retailer," CIE Discussion Papers 2005-05, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. Centre for Industrial Economics.
    19. Dan Lovallo & Colin Camerer, 1999. "Overconfidence and Excess Entry: An Experimental Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 306-318, March.
    20. Lucking-Reiley, David, 2000. "Auctions on the Internet: What's Being Auctioned, and How?," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(3), pages 227-252, September.
    21. Abhijit V. Banerjee, 1992. "A Simple Model of Herd Behavior," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 107(3), pages 797-817.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Network Effects; Local Networks; Stability; Option-Value;

    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:net:wpaper:0812. 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: (Nicholas Economides). General contact details of provider: http://www.NETinst.org/ .

    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.