IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sef/csefwp/457.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consumer Loss Aversion, Product Experimentation and Implicit Collusion

Author

Listed:

Abstract

Two firms supplying experience goods compete to attract loss averse consumers that are uncertain about how well these goods fit their needs. To resolve valuation uncertainty, firms can allow perspective customers to test (experiment) their products before purchase. We investigate firms' dynamic incentives to allow experimentation and analyze the resulting effects on the profitability and the stability of horizontal price fixing. The analysis shows that, depending on the regulatory regime in place | i.e., whether experimentation is forbidden, mandated or simply allowed but not imposed (laissez-faire) | the degree of consumer loss aversion has ambiguous effects both on the profits that firms can achieve through implicit collusion and on the extent to which these agreements can be sustained. Moreover, we also show that while in static environments consumer welfare is always maximized by a policy that forbids experimentation, the opposite might happen in a dynamic environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Salvatore Piccolo & Aldo Pignataro, 2016. "Consumer Loss Aversion, Product Experimentation and Implicit Collusion," CSEF Working Papers 457, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
  • Handle: RePEc:sef:csefwp:457
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.csef.it/WP/wp457.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Salvatore Piccolo & Piero Tedeschi & Giovanni Ursino, 2018. "Deceptive Advertising with Rational Buyers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(3), pages 1291-1310, March.
    2. Andrew Rhodes & Chris M. Wilson, 2018. "False advertising," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 49(2), pages 348-369, June.
    3. James W. Friedman, 1971. "A Non-cooperative Equilibrium for Supergames," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 38(1), pages 1-12.
    4. Rothschild, R., 1992. "On the sustainability of collusion in differentiated duopolies," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 33-37, September.
    5. Antonio Rosato, 2016. "Selling substitute goods to loss-averse consumers: limited availability, bargains, and rip-offs," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 47(3), pages 709-733, August.
    6. Heiko Karle & Martin Peitz, 2014. "Competition under consumer loss aversion," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(1), pages 1-31, March.
    7. Simon P. Anderson & Régis Renault, 2006. "Advertising Content," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(1), pages 93-113, March.
    8. John H. Roberts & Glen L. Urban, 1988. "Modeling Multiattribute Utility, Risk, and Belief Dynamics for New Consumer Durable Brand Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 167-185, February.
    9. Frédéric Koessler & Régis Renault, 2012. "When does a firm disclose product information?," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(4), pages 630-649, December.
    10. Amir Heiman & Bruce McWilliams & Zhihua Shen & David Zilberman, 2001. "Learning and Forgetting: Modeling Optimal Product Sampling Over Time," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(4), pages 532-546, April.
    11. Toshihiro Matsumura & Noriaki Matsushima, 2005. "Cartel Stability in a Delivered Pricing Oligopoly," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 259-292, December.
    12. Maxim Ivanov, 2013. "Information revelation in competitive markets," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 52(1), pages 337-365, January.
    13. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    14. Miklós-Thal, Jeanine, 2008. "Delivered pricing and the impact of spatial differentiation on cartel stability," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 1365-1380, November.
    15. Mailath, George J. & Nocke, Volker & White, Lucy, 2004. "When the Punishment Must Fit the Crime: Remarks on the Failure of Simple Penal Codes in Extensive-Form Games," CEPR Discussion Papers 4793, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. Raphael Boleslavsky & Christopher S. Cotton & Haresh Gurnani, 2017. "Demonstrations and Price Competition in New Product Release," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(6), pages 2016-2026, June.
    17. Salvatore Piccolo & Piero Tedeschi & Giovanni Ursino, 2015. "How limiting deceptive practices harms consumers," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(3), pages 611-624, September.
    18. W. Kip Viscusi, 1978. "A Note on "Lemons" Markets with Quality Certification," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 9(1), pages 277-279, Spring.
    19. Luca Lambertini & Dan Sasaki, 1999. "Optimal punishments in linear duopoly supergames with product differentiation," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 69(2), pages 173-188, June.
    20. Hahn, Sunku, 2005. "Allowing a pre-purchase product trial in duopoly," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 175-179, May.
    21. Michael J. Fishman & Kathleen M. Hagerty, 2003. "Mandatory Versus Voluntary Disclosure in Markets with Informed and Uninformed Customers," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 45-63, April.
    22. repec:dau:papers:123456789/12406 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Stefano Colombo, 2013. "Product Differentiation and Collusion Sustainability When Collusion Is Costly," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(4), pages 669-674, July.
    24. Maarten C.W. Janssen & Mariya Teteryatnikova, 2016. "Horizontal Product Differentiation: Disclosure and Competition," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(4), pages 589-620, December.
    25. Levent Celik, 2014. "Information Unraveling Revisited: Disclosure of Horizontal Attributes," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(1), pages 113-136, March.
    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. Piccolo, Salvatore & Pignataro, Aldo, 2018. "Consumer loss aversion, product experimentation and tacit collusion," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 49-77.
    2. Aldo Pignataro, 2019. "The effects of loss aversion on deceptive advertising policies," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(4), pages 451-472, November.
    3. Maarten C.W. Janssen & Mariya Teteryatnikova, 2016. "Horizontal Product Differentiation: Disclosure and Competition," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(4), pages 589-620, December.
    4. Janssen, Maarten, 2017. "Regulating False Discloure," VfS Annual Conference 2017 (Vienna): Alternative Structures for Money and Banking 168159, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    5. Maarten C. W. Janssen & Mariya Teteryatnikova, 2017. "Mystifying but not misleading: when does political ambiguity not confuse voters?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 172(3), pages 501-524, September.
    6. Janssen, Maarten & Roy, Santanu, 2017. "Regulating False Disclosure," CEPR Discussion Papers 12450, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Celik, Levent, 2016. "Competitive provision of tune-ins under common private information," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 113-122.
    8. Baldelli, Serena & Lambertini, Luca, 2006. "Price vs quantity in a duopoly supergame with Nash punishments," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 121-130, September.
    9. Serafin Grundl & You Suk Kim, 2019. "Consumer mistakes and advertising: The case of mortgage refinancing," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 161-213, June.
    10. Stefano Colombo, 2009. "The unidirectional Hotelling model with spatial price discrimination," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 29(4), pages 3031-3040.
    11. Florian Morath & Johannes Münster, 2018. "Online Shopping and Platform Design with Ex Ante Registration Requirements," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 360-380, January.
    12. Stefano Colombo, 2012. "Collusion in two models of spatial competition with quantity-setting firms," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 48(1), pages 45-69, February.
    13. Janssen, Maarten & Roy, Santanu, 2017. "Regulating False Disclosure," CEPR Discussion Papers 12450, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Alessandro Ispano & Peter Schwardmann, 2018. "Competition over Cursed Consumers," CESifo Working Paper Series 7046, CESifo.
    15. Koessler, Frederic & Skreta, Vasiliki, 2019. "Selling with evidence," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(2), May.
    16. Luca Lambertini, 2000. "Technology and Cartel Stability under Vertical Differentiation," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 1(4), pages 421-442, November.
    17. Karle, Heiko & Peitz, Martin, 2017. "De-targeting: Advertising an assortment of products to loss-averse consumers," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 103-124.
    18. Salvatore Piccolo & Piero Tedeschi & Giovanni Ursino, 2018. "Deceptive Advertising with Rational Buyers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(3), pages 1291-1310, March.
    19. Matthew Jones & Bruce Kobayashi & Jason O’Connor, 2018. "Economics at the FTC: Non-price Merger Effects and Deceptive Automobile Ads," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 53(4), pages 593-614, December.
    20. Stefano Colombo, 2011. "Pricing Policy and Partial Collusion," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 325-349, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Collusion; Loss Aversion; Product Experimentation; Vertical Differentiation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
    • L15 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Information and Product Quality
    • L44 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Antitrust Policy and Public Enterprise, Nonprofit Institutions, and Professional Organizations
    • M30 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - 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:sef:csefwp:457. 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: Dr. Maria Carannante (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cssalit.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.