"Download for Free" - When Do Providers of Digital Goods Offer Free Samples?

In a monopoly setting where consumers cannot observe the quality of the product we show that free samples which are of a lower quality than the marketed digital goods are used together with high prices as signals for a superior quality if the number of informed consumers is small and if the difference between the high and the low quality is not too small. Social welfare is higher, if the monopolist uses also free samples as signals, compared to a situation where he is restricted to pure price signalling. Both, the monopolist and consumers benefit from the additional signal

"Download for Free" - When Do Providers of Digital Goods Offer Free Samples?

In a monopoly setting where consumers cannot observe the quality of the product we show that free samples which are of a lower quality than the marketed digital goods are used together with high prices as signals for a superior quality if the number of informed consumers is small and if the difference between the high and the low quality is not too small. Social welfare is higher, if the monopolist uses also free samples as signals, compared to a situation where he is restricted to pure price signalling. Both, the monopolist and consumers benefit from the additional signal.Digital Goods; Free Samples; Multi-dimensional Signalling

"Download for Free": When do providers of digital goods offer free samples?

In a monopoly setting where consumers cannot observe the quality of the product we show that free samples which are of a lower quality than the marketed digital goods are used together with high prices as signals for a superior quality if the number of informed consumers is small and if the difference between the high and the low quality is not too small. Social welfare is higher, if the monopolist uses also free samples as signals, compared to a situation where he is restricted to pure price signalling. Both, the monopolist and consumers benefit from the additional signal. --

Restructuring Electricity Markets when Demand is Uncertain: Effects on Capacity Investments, Prices and Welfare

We examine the effects of restructuring electricity markets on capacity investments, retail prices and welfare when demand is uncertain. We study the following market configurations: (i) integrated monopoly, (ii) integrated duopoly with wholesale trade, and (iii) separated duopoly with wholesale trade. Assuming that wholesale prices can react to changes in retail prices (but not vice versa), we find that generators install sufficient capacity to serve retail demand in each market configuration, thus avoiding blackouts. Furthermore, aggregate capacity levels and retail prices are such that the separated (integrated) duopoly with wholesale trade performs best (worst) in terms of welfare.electricity; investments; generating capacities; vertical integration; monopoly and competition

When do providers of digital goods offer free samples?

In a monopoly setting where consumers cannot observe the quality of the product we show that free samples which are of a lower quality than the marketed digital goods are used together with high prices as signals for a superior quality if the number of informed consumers is small and if the di®erence between the high and the low quality is not too small. Social welfare is higher, if the monopolist uses also free samples as signals, compared to a situation where he is restricted to pure price signalling. Both, the monopolist and consumers bene¯t from the additional signal

Investments in electricity generating capacity under different market strucutures and with endogenously fixed demand

"Investments in Generating Capacities between a monopolist and two competing firms are compared where the firms invest in their capacity and fix the retail price while electricity demand is uncertain. A unit price auction determines the wholesale electricity price when the firms compete. They know the level of demand when they bid their capacities. Total capacities can be larger or smaller with a duopoly than with a monopoly. If the two firms co-ordinate on a pareto dominant equilibrium, then the retail price is always higher and the social welfare lower in the competitive case, which exists only if capacity costs are not too high." (author's abstract)"Die Investitionen in Stromerzeugungskapazität von einem Monopolisten werden mit denen zweier konkurrierender Unternehmen verglichen. Dabei investieren die Unternehmen in ihre Kapazität und setzen ihren Einzelhandelspreis, bevor sich die unsichere Nachfrage realisiert hat. Im Falle konkurrierender Firmen bestimmt sich der Großhandelspreis in einer nicht-diskriminierenden Auktion. Die Unternehmen kennen die Nachfragerealisation, wenn sie dort Ihre Gebote abgeben. Die Gesamtkapazität im Duopol kann sowohl größer als auch kleiner sein als im Monopol. Falls die zwei Unternehmen sich jedoch auf ein paretodominantes Gleichgewicht koordinieren, dann ist der Einzelhandelspreis immer höher und die soziale Wohlfahrt immer niedriger im Wettbewerbsgleichgewicht als im Monopol, wobei ersteres nur bei relativ geringen Kapazitätskosten existiert." (Autorenreferat

Vertically Integrated Firms' Investments in Electricity Generating Capacities

We compare investments in generating capacities of an integrated monopolist with the aggregate investments of two vertically integrated competing firms. The firms invest in their capacity and fix the retail price while electricity demand is uncertain. The wholesale price is determined in a unit price auction where the firms know the level of demand when they bid their capacities. Total capacities can be larger or smaller with a duopoly than with a monopoly. If the two firms select the Pareto dominant equilibrium, then the retail price is always higher and the social welfare lower in the duopoly case.

Vertical Product Differentiation, Network Externalities, and Compatibility Decisions

We analyse the subgame perfect equilibrium of a four stage game in a model of vertical product differentiation, where the consumer's evaluation of a product depends on its inherent quality and on its network's size. First, two firms choose their product's inherent quality. Then they may mutually agree on providing an adapter before competing in prices. Finally, consumers buy. We find that, despite the high quality firm's preference for incompatibility, an adapter is always provided in equilibrium. Social welfare is greater than without an adapter and can be improved by regulating compatibility only in those cases where qualities are differentiated too much.

Vertically Integrated Firms' Investments in Electricity Generating Capacities

We compare investments in generating capacities of an integrated monopolist with the aggregate investments of two vertically integrated competing firms. The firms invest in their capacity and fix the retail price while electricity demand is uncertain. The wholesale price is determined in a unit price auction where the firms know the level of demand when they bid their capacities. Total capacities can be larger or smaller with a duopoly than with a monopoly. If the two firms select the Pareto dominant equilibrium, then the retail price is always higher and the social welfare lower in the duopoly case

Equilibrium Selection with Risk Dominance in a Multiple-unit Unit Price Auction

This paper uses an adapted version of the linear tracing procedure, suggested by Harsanyi and Selten (1988), in order to discriminate between two types of multiple Nash equilibria. Equilibria of the same type are pay-off equivalent in the analysed multiple-unit unit price auction where two sellers compete in order to serve a fixed demand. The equilibria where the firm with the larger capacity bids the maximum price, serves the residual demand and is undercut by the low capacity firm that sells its total capacity risk dominate the equilibria where the roles are interchanged