相互竞争的双面平台的定价权冲突与合作策略:差异化增值服务和跨网络效应的影响

IF 2.5 3区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS
Huabao Zeng, Tong Shu, Yue Yu, Jinhong Li, Shouyang Wang
{"title":"相互竞争的双面平台的定价权冲突与合作策略:差异化增值服务和跨网络效应的影响","authors":"Huabao Zeng,&nbsp;Tong Shu,&nbsp;Yue Yu,&nbsp;Jinhong Li,&nbsp;Shouyang Wang","doi":"10.1002/mde.4460","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Since pricing power plays a pivot role in platforms' pricing strategies and services investment, thereby influencing the competitive landscape between the two platforms. This study investigates the pricing power preferences within a two-sided manufacturing platform ecosystem, where a large-scale platform (platform <i>L</i>) competes with a small-specialized platform (platform <i>R</i>) for bilateral users through differentiated value-added services (VAS) level. Both platforms exhibit cross-network externality and engage in pricing power competition. Three endogenous pricing power modes are available, including horizontal Nash (mode B), platform <i>L</i>-price-leader Stackelberg (mode L), and platform <i>R</i>-price-leader Stackelberg (mode R). The optimal solutions under each mode and characterize the equilibrium evolution of pricing power preferences are derived. Findings reveal that at the low VAS level stage for platform <i>L</i>, mode R realizes equilibrium when the hassle cost is low; mode L realizes equilibrium when the hassle cost is high. At the high VAS level stage for platform <i>L</i>, mode L realizes equilibrium when the hassle cost is high; mode R realizes equilibrium only when the hassle cost is low and cross-network externality is in a high range. Notably, competing platforms will trap into the pricing power conflict when both platforms strategically second moves in announcing prices. Therefore, this study proposes two feasible strategies for platform cooperation: joint revenue and VAS cost-sharing and transfer payment. These strategies can reach a “win–win” outcome when sharing ratios are moderate or payment meets suitable thresholds. This study not only enhances the theory of two-sided markets but also provides strategic guidance for platform competition and cooperation.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":18186,"journal":{"name":"Managerial and Decision Economics","volume":"46 3","pages":"1628-1644"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pricing Power Conflict and Cooperation Strategies of Competing Two-Sided Platforms: Impact of the Differentiated Value-Added Services and Cross-Network Effects\",\"authors\":\"Huabao Zeng,&nbsp;Tong Shu,&nbsp;Yue Yu,&nbsp;Jinhong Li,&nbsp;Shouyang Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/mde.4460\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>Since pricing power plays a pivot role in platforms' pricing strategies and services investment, thereby influencing the competitive landscape between the two platforms. This study investigates the pricing power preferences within a two-sided manufacturing platform ecosystem, where a large-scale platform (platform <i>L</i>) competes with a small-specialized platform (platform <i>R</i>) for bilateral users through differentiated value-added services (VAS) level. Both platforms exhibit cross-network externality and engage in pricing power competition. Three endogenous pricing power modes are available, including horizontal Nash (mode B), platform <i>L</i>-price-leader Stackelberg (mode L), and platform <i>R</i>-price-leader Stackelberg (mode R). The optimal solutions under each mode and characterize the equilibrium evolution of pricing power preferences are derived. Findings reveal that at the low VAS level stage for platform <i>L</i>, mode R realizes equilibrium when the hassle cost is low; mode L realizes equilibrium when the hassle cost is high. At the high VAS level stage for platform <i>L</i>, mode L realizes equilibrium when the hassle cost is high; mode R realizes equilibrium only when the hassle cost is low and cross-network externality is in a high range. Notably, competing platforms will trap into the pricing power conflict when both platforms strategically second moves in announcing prices. Therefore, this study proposes two feasible strategies for platform cooperation: joint revenue and VAS cost-sharing and transfer payment. These strategies can reach a “win–win” outcome when sharing ratios are moderate or payment meets suitable thresholds. This study not only enhances the theory of two-sided markets but also provides strategic guidance for platform competition and cooperation.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18186,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Managerial and Decision Economics\",\"volume\":\"46 3\",\"pages\":\"1628-1644\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Managerial and Decision Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mde.4460\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Managerial and Decision Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mde.4460","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于定价权在平台的定价策略和服务投资中起着举足轻重的作用,从而影响着两个平台之间的竞争格局。本研究考察了大型平台(平台L)与小型专业平台(平台R)通过差异化增值服务(VAS)水平竞争双边用户的双边制造平台生态系统中的定价权偏好。这两个平台都表现出跨网络的外部性,并参与定价权竞争。本文给出了水平纳什模式(B模式)、平台L-价格领先Stackelberg模式(L模式)和平台R-价格领先Stackelberg模式(R模式)三种内生定价权模式,并推导了每种模式下的最优解和定价权偏好均衡演化特征。结果表明,在平台L的低VAS水平阶段,模式R在麻烦成本较低时实现了平衡;模式L在纠纷成本较高时实现均衡。在平台L的高VAS级别阶段,模式L在麻烦成本较高时实现均衡;模式R只有在纠纷成本较低且跨网络外部性较高的情况下才能实现均衡。值得注意的是,当两个平台都在宣布价格时战略性地采取第二步时,竞争平台将陷入定价权冲突。因此,本研究提出了两种可行的平台合作策略:共同收益和VAS成本分担和转移支付。当分享比例适中或支付达到合适的阈值时,这些策略可以达到“双赢”的结果。本研究不仅充实了双边市场理论,也为平台竞争与合作提供了战略指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pricing Power Conflict and Cooperation Strategies of Competing Two-Sided Platforms: Impact of the Differentiated Value-Added Services and Cross-Network Effects

Since pricing power plays a pivot role in platforms' pricing strategies and services investment, thereby influencing the competitive landscape between the two platforms. This study investigates the pricing power preferences within a two-sided manufacturing platform ecosystem, where a large-scale platform (platform L) competes with a small-specialized platform (platform R) for bilateral users through differentiated value-added services (VAS) level. Both platforms exhibit cross-network externality and engage in pricing power competition. Three endogenous pricing power modes are available, including horizontal Nash (mode B), platform L-price-leader Stackelberg (mode L), and platform R-price-leader Stackelberg (mode R). The optimal solutions under each mode and characterize the equilibrium evolution of pricing power preferences are derived. Findings reveal that at the low VAS level stage for platform L, mode R realizes equilibrium when the hassle cost is low; mode L realizes equilibrium when the hassle cost is high. At the high VAS level stage for platform L, mode L realizes equilibrium when the hassle cost is high; mode R realizes equilibrium only when the hassle cost is low and cross-network externality is in a high range. Notably, competing platforms will trap into the pricing power conflict when both platforms strategically second moves in announcing prices. Therefore, this study proposes two feasible strategies for platform cooperation: joint revenue and VAS cost-sharing and transfer payment. These strategies can reach a “win–win” outcome when sharing ratios are moderate or payment meets suitable thresholds. This study not only enhances the theory of two-sided markets but also provides strategic guidance for platform competition and cooperation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
18.20%
发文量
242
期刊介绍: Managerial and Decision Economics will publish articles applying economic reasoning to managerial decision-making and management strategy.Management strategy concerns practical decisions that managers face about how to compete, how to succeed, and how to organize to achieve their goals. Economic thinking and analysis provides a critical foundation for strategic decision-making across a variety of dimensions. For example, economic insights may help in determining which activities to outsource and which to perfom internally. They can help unravel questions regarding what drives performance differences among firms and what allows these differences to persist. They can contribute to an appreciation of how industries, organizations, and capabilities evolve.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信