skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Title: The importance of consumer multi-homing (joint purchases) for market performance: mergers and entry in media markets
Consumer "multi-homing" (watching two TV channels, or buying two news magazines) has surprisingly important effects on market equilibrium and performance in (two-sided) media markets. We show this by introducing consumer multi-homing and advertising-finance into the classic circle model of product differentiation. When consumers multi-home (attend more than one platform), media platforms can charge only incremental-value prices to advertisers. Entry or merger leaves consumer prices unchanged under consumer multi-homing, but leaves advertiser prices unchanged under single-homing: multi-homing flips the side of the market on which platforms compete. In contrast to standard circle results, equilibrium product variety can be insufficient under multi-homing.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1919493
PAR ID:
10165780
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Journal of economics and management sciences
Volume:
28
Issue:
1
ISSN:
2576-3008
Page Range / eLocation ID:
125-137
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. null (Ed.)
    Internet users have suffered collateral damage in tussles over paid peering between large ISPs and large content providers. The issue will arise again when the FCC considers a new net neutrality order. In this paper, we model the effect of paid peering fees on broadband prices and consumer surplus. We first consider the effect of paid peering on broadband prices. ISPs assert that paid peering revenue is offset by lower broadband prices, and that ISP profits remain unchanged. Content providers assert that paid peering fees do not result in lower broadband prices, but simply increase ISP profits. We adopt a two-sided market model in which an ISP maximizes profit by setting broadband prices and a paid peering price. To separately evaluate the effect on consumers who utilize video streaming and on consumers who don’t, we model two broadband plans: a basic plan for consumers whose utility principally derives from email and web browsing, and a premium plan for consumers with significant incremental utility from video streaming. Our result shows that the claims of the ISPs and of the content providers are both incorrect. Paid peering fees reduce the premium plan price; however, the ISP passes on to its customers only a portion of the revenue from paid peering. We find that ISP profit increases but video streaming profit decreases as an ISP moves from settlement-free peering to paid peering price. We next consider the effect of paid peering on consumer surplus. ISPs assert that paid peering increases consumer surplus because it eliminates an inherent subsidy of consumers with high video streaming use by consumers without. Content providers assert that paid peering decreases consumer surplus because paid peering fees are passed onto consumers through higher video streaming prices and because there is no corresponding reduction in broadband prices. We simulate a regulated market in which a regulatory agency determines the maximum paid peering fee (if any) to maximize consumer surplus, an ISP sets its broadband prices to maximize profit, and a content provider sets its video streaming price. Simulation parameters are chosen to reflect typical broadband prices, video streaming prices, ISP rate of return, and content provider rate of return. We find that consumer surplus is a uni-modal function of the paid peering fee. The paid peering fee that maximizes consumer surplus depends on elasticities of demand for broadband and for video streaming. However, consumer surplus is maximized when paid peering fees are significantly lower than those that maximize ISP profit. However, it does not follow that settlement-free peering is always the policy that maximizes consumer surplus. The direct peering price depends critically on the incremental ISP cost per video streaming subscriber; at different costs, it can be negative, zero, or positive. 
    more » « less
  2. The sharing economy has upset the market for housing and transportation services. Homeowners can rent out their property when they are away on vacation, car owners can offer ridesharing services. These sharing economy business models are based on monetizing under-utilized infrastructure. They are enabled by peer-to-peer platforms that match eager sellers with willing buyers. Are there compelling sharing economy opportunities in the electricity sector? What products or services can be shared in tomorrow’s Smart Grid? We begin by exploring sharing economy opportunities in the electricity sector, and discuss regulatory and technical obstacles to these opportunities. We then study the specific problem of a collection of firms sharing their electricity storage. We characterize equilibrium prices for shared storage in a spot market. We formulate storage investment decisions of the firms as a non-convex non-cooperative game. We show that under a mild alignment condition, a Nash equilibrium exists, it is unique, and it supports the social welfare. We discuss technology platforms necessary for the physical exchange of power, and market platforms necessary to trade electricity storage. We close with synthetic examples to illustrate our ideas. 
    more » « less
  3. Abstract We study list price competition when firms can individually target consumer discounts (at a cost) afterwards, and we address recent privacy regulation (like the GDPR) allowing consumers to choose whether to opt-in to targeting. Targeted consumers receive poaching and retention discount offers. Equilibrium discount offers are in mixed strategies, but only two firms vie for each contested consumer and final profits on them are Bertrand-like. When targeting is unrestricted, firm list pricing resembles monopoly. For plausible demand conditions and if targeting costs are not too low, firms and consumers are worse off with unrestricted targeting than banning it. However, targeting induces higher (lower) list prices if demand is convex (concave), and either side of the market can benefit if list prices shift enough in its favour. Given the choice, consumers opt in only when expected discounts exceed privacy costs. Under empirically plausible conditions, opt-in choice makes all consumers better off. 
    more » « less
  4. Abstract This article studies equilibrium dynamics in consumer durable goods markets after aggregate credit shocks. We introduce two novel features into a general-equilibrium model of durable consumption with heterogeneous households facing idiosyncratic income risk and borrowing constraints: (1) indivisible durable goods are vertically differentiated in their quality and (2) trade on secondary markets at market-clearing prices, with households endogenously choosing when to trade or scrap their durables. The model highlights a new transmission mechanism for macroeconomic shocks and successfully matches several empirical patterns that we document using data on U.S. car markets around the Great Recession. After a tightening of the borrowing limit, debt-constrained households postpone the decision to scrap and upgrade their low-quality cars, which depresses mid-quality car prices. In turn, this effect reduces wealthy households’ incentives to replace their mid-quality cars with high-quality ones, thereby decreasing new-car sales. We further use our framework to evaluate targeted fiscal stimulus policies such as the Car Allowance Rebate System in 2009 (“Cash for Clunkers”). 
    more » « less
  5. This paper proposes a market mechanism for multi-interval electricity markets with generator and storage participants. Drawing ideas from supply function bidding, we introduce a novel bid structure for storage participation that allows storage units to communicate their cost to the market using energy cycling functions that map prices to cycle depths. The resulting market-clearing process--implemented via convex programming--yields corresponding schedules and payments based on traditional energy prices for power supply and per-cycle prices for storage utilization. We illustrate the benefits of our solution by comparing the competitive equilibrium of the resulting mechanism to that of an alternative solution that uses prosumer-based bids. Our solution shows several advantages over the prosumer-based approach. It does not require a priori price estimation. It also incentivizes participants to reveal their truthful costs, thus leading to an efficient, competitive equilibrium. Numerical experiments using New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) data validate our findings. 
    more » « less