Hemant K. Bhargava
Abstract
Many markets feature an economic structure in which value is cocreated by multiple producers and aggregated into a common bundle by a producer-consortium or independent firm. Examples include in-home video entertainment, technology goods and services, multisourced data platforms, and patent pools. This paper develops an economic model to study demand, production choices, revenue sharing, and relative market power in such markets. Producers in these markets are not rivalrous competitors in the usual zero-sum sense, because output of each casts an externality on production decisions of others and total market demand expands with total output, albeit with diminishing returns. This property allows multiple producers to flourish in equilibrium (versus just one with the most favorable technological or cost structure), and more so when the market expands less quickly with total output. Equilibrium production quantities of competitors are strategic complements, yet competition between producers does manifest itself, for example, if one acquires better production technology (i.e., makes value units at lower cost) then the equilibrium production levels of other producers are reduced. Insights are also derived for alternative market structures, for example, producers have more output and earn higher profit when organized into a distribution consortium (e.g., Hulu or consortia of zoos or museums) versus relying on a separate retailer. Mergers between producers have similar effect. The formulation enables us to rigorously answer economic questions ranging from pricing, revenue sharing, and production levels in a static setting, to market dynamics covering both the causes and effects of changes in industry structure.
This paper was accepted by Chris Forman, information systems.
-
(1976) Commodity bundling and the burden of monopoly. Quart. J. Econom. 90(3):475–498.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
-
(2020) Frenemies in patform markets: Heterogeneous profit foci as drivers of compatibility decisions. Management Sci. 66(6):2432–2451.Google Scholar
-
(2000) Bundling and competition on the Internet. Marketing Sci. 19(1):63–82.Google Scholar
-
(2012) Retailer-driven product bundling in a distribution channel. Marketing Sci. 31(6):1014–1021.Google ScholarDigital Library
-
(2013) Mixed bundling of two independently-valued goods. Management Sci. 59(9):2170–2185.Google Scholar
-
(2012) Co-creation of value in a platform ecosystem: The case of enterprise software. MIS Quart. 36(1):263–290.Google Scholar
-
(2007) Price and variety in the spokes model. Econom. J. 117(522):897–921.Google Scholar
-
(2016) Platform Revolution: How Networked Markets Are Transforming the Economy—And How to Make Them Work for You, 1st ed. (W. W. Norton & Company, New York).
Google Scholar
-
(1838 [1929]) Researches into the Mathematical Principles of the Theory of Wealth. Trans. Nathaniel T. Bacon. (Macmillan Company, New York).Google Scholar
-
(2019) The Business of Platforms: Strategy in the Age of Digital Competition, Innovation, and Power (HarperCollins, New York) Google Scholar
-
(2018) Two is better than one: A dynamic analysis of value co-creation. Production Oper. Management, ePub ahead of print February 28, https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12862.
Google Scholar
-
(1992) Competition and integration among complements and network market structure. J. Indust. Econom. 40(1):105–123.Google Scholar
-
(1998) The vertical organization of industry: Systems competition vs. component competition. J. Econom. Management Strategy 7(2):143–182.Google ScholarCross Ref
-
(1996) Horizontal and vertical differentiation: The Launhardt model. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. 14(4):485–506.Google Scholar
-
(2018) Does platform owner’s entry crowd out innovation? Evidence from google photos. Inform. Systems Res. 29(2):440–460.Google Scholar
-
(1986) On the nature of competition with differentiated products. Econom. J. (London) 96(381):
160–172.Google Scholar
-
(2009) Two-sided platforms: Product variety and pricing structures. J. Econom. Management Strategy 18(4):1011–1043.Google ScholarCross Ref
-
(2013) First-party content and coordination in two-sided markets. Management Sci. 59(4):933–949.Google ScholarDigital Library
-
(2016) Should I ski today? The economics of ski resort season passes. Leisure/Loisir 40(2):131–148.Google Scholar
-
(2013) Defining software ecosystems: A survey of software platforms and business network governance. Jansen S, Brinkkemper S, Cusumano MA, eds. Software Ecosystems: Analyzing and Managing Business Networks in the Software Industry (Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK), 13–28.Google Scholar
-
(1994) Systems competition and network effects. J. Econom. Perspect. 8(2):93–115.Google ScholarCross Ref
-
(2004) Efficient patent pools. Amer. Econom. Rev. 94(3):691–711.Google Scholar
-
(1988) ”Mix and match”: Product compatibility without network externalities. RAND J. Econom. 19(2):221–234.Google Scholar
-
(1989) Multiproduct monopoly, commodity bundling, and correlation of values. Quart. J. Econom. 104(2):371–383.Google ScholarCross Ref
-
(2019) Welfare implications in intermediary networks. Preprint, submitted April 24, 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2814569.Google Scholar
-
(2007) Platform ownership. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 5(6):1130–1160.Google Scholar
-
(2014) pscanner: Patient-centered scalable national network for effectiveness research. J. Amer. Med. Inform. Assoc. 21(4):621–626.Google Scholar
-
(2000) The benefits of bundling strategies. Schmalenbach Bus. Rev. 1:137–160.Google Scholar
-
(2018) Emerging trends in product bundling: Investigating consumer choice and firm behavior. Customer Needs Solutions 5(1):107–120.Google ScholarCross Ref
-
(1984) Gaussian demand and commodity bundling. J. Bus. 57(1):S211–S230.Google ScholarCross Ref
-
(1982) Relaxing price competition through product differentiation. Rev. Econom. Stud. 49(1):3–13.Google Scholar
-
(1963) United states v. Loew’s inc: A note on block-booking. Supreme Court Rev. 1963(1963):152–157.Google Scholar
-
(2019) The Business of Media Distribution: Monetizing Film, TV, and Video Content in an Online World (Routledge, New York).
Google Scholar
-
(1992) Microeconomic Analysis (Norton, New York).Google Scholar
-
(2003) Optimal bundling and pricing under a monopoly: Contrasting complements and substitutes from independently valued products. J. Bus. 76(2):211–232.Google Scholar
-
(2018) Competing with complementors: An empirical look at amazon.com. Strategic Management J. 39(10):2618–2642.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Bundling for Flexibility and Variety: An Economic Model for Multiproducer Value Aggregation
Recommendations
Mixed-bundling auctions with reserve prices
AAMAS '12: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 2Revenue maximization in multi-item settings is notoriously elusive. This paper studies a class of two-item auctions which we call a mixed-bundling auction with reserve prices (MBARP). It calls VCG on an enlarged set of agents by adding the seller---who ...
Bundling and Competition on the Internet
The Internet has signi.cantly reduced the marginal cost of producing and distributing digital information goods. It also coincides with the emergence of new competitive strategies such as large-scale bundling. In this paper, we show that bundling can ...
Competitive bundling in information markets: a seller-side analysis
The emerging field of data analytics and the increasing importance of data and information in decision making has created a large market for buying and selling information and information-related services. In this market, for some types of information ...
Comments