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: Price Discrimination in the Information Age: Prices, Poaching, and Privacy with Personalized Targeted Discounts
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
Award ID(s):
1919383
PAR ID:
10381550
Author(s) / Creator(s):
;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
The Review of Economic Studies
ISSN:
0034-6527
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. Abstract We present a model of digital advertising with three key features: (1) advertisers can reach consumers on and off a platform, (2) additional data enhances the value of advertiser–consumer matches, and (3) the allocation of advertisements follows an auction-like mechanism. We contrast data-augmented auctions, which leverage the platform’s data advantage to improve match quality, with managed-campaign mechanisms that automate match formation and price-setting. The platform-optimal mechanism is a managed campaign that conditions the on-platform prices for sponsored products on the off-platform prices set by all advertisers. This mechanism yields the efficient on-platform allocation but inefficiently high off-platform product prices. It attains the vertical integration profit for the platform and the advertisers, and it increases off-platform product prices while decreasing consumer surplus, relative to data-augmented auctions. 
    more » « less
  3. The California Consumer Privacy Act and other privacy laws give people a right to opt out of the sale and sharing of personal information. In combination with privacy preference signals, especially, Global Privacy Control (GPC), such rights have the potential to empower people to assert control over their data. However, many laws prohibit opt out settings being turned on by default. The resulting usability challenges for people to exercise their rights motivate generalizable active privacy choice --- an interface design principle to make opt out settings usable without defaults. It is based on the idea of generalizing one individual opt out choice towards a larger set of choices. For example, people may apply an opt out choice on one site towards a larger set of sites. We explore generalizable active privacy choice in the context of GPC. We design and implement nine privacy choice schemes in a browser extension and explore them in a usability study with 410 participants. We find that generalizability features tend to decrease opt out utility slightly. However, at the same time, they increase opt out efficiency and make opting out less disruptive, which was more important to most participants. For the least disruptive scheme, selecting website categories to opt out from, 98% of participants expressed not feeling disrupted, a 40% point increase over the baseline schemes. 83% of participants understood the meaning of GPC. They also made their opt out choices with intent and, thus, in a legally relevant manner. To help people exercise their opt out rights via GPC our results support the adoption of a generalizable active privacy choice interface in web browsers. 
    more » « less
  4. 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
  5. How does protecting consumers' privacy affect the value of their personal data? We model an intermediary that uses consumers' data to influence prices set by a seller. When privacy is protected, consumers choose whether to disclose their data to the intermediary. When privacy is not protected, the intermediary can access consumers' data without their consent. We illustrate that protecting privacy has complex effects. It can increase the value of some consumers' data while decreasing that of others. It can have redistributive effects, by benefiting some consumers at the expense of others. Finally, it can increase average prices and reduce trade. 
    more » « less