Search and Segregation

Consumers' willingness to pay for an identical product, e.g. as caused by differences in local income or tastes, may differ greatly across locations. Yet, while a large literature examines consumers' optimal price and product-search behavior under various market configurations, the equilibrium effects of such consumer segregation remain unexplored. To this end, I study a stylized model in which two local monopolistic markets differ in size and their consumers' willingness to pay. After observing their native market's price, a subset of flexible consumers may travel to the other market at positive cost, hoping for a bargain. I show that as long as the proportion of flexible high-valuation consumers is not too large, active and directed search to the lower-valuation market will occur in equilibrium. If the higher-valuation market is relatively large in size, complex mixed-strategy pricing emerges in equilibrium. For regulators, increasing the fraction of flexible consumers tends to be more effective than manipulating search costs

Going to the Discounter: Consumer Search with Local Market Heterogeneities

This article proposes a new rationale for consumer search and mixed-strategy pricing: the presence of local market heterogeneities. In the model, two spatially separated markets, each home to an identical local monopolist, differ in size and their consumers' willingness to pay (e.g., as caused by differences in local income). Consumers observe their native market's price and a flexible subset of them may travel to the other market at strictly positive cost, hoping for a bargain. I show that as long as the proportion of flexible consumers in the high-valuation market is not too large, directed search to the low-valuation market will occur in equilibrium. If the high-valuation market is relatively large in size, the opposed firm faces a commitment problem that induces non-trivial mixed-strategy pricing in equilibrium. In particular, low-valuation consumers are excluded from the product market with positive probability. Informative advertising with price-commitment may decrease market performance

Austrian-style gasoline price regulation: How it may backfire

In January 2011, a price regulation was established in the Austrian gasoline market which prohibits firms from raising their prices more than once per day. Similar restrictions have been discussed in New York State and Germany. Despite their intuitive appeal, this article argues that Austrian-type policies may actually harm consumers. In a two-period duopoly model with consumer search, I show that in face of the regulation, firms will distort their prices intertemporally in such a way that their aggregate expected profit remains unchanged. This implies that, as some consumers find it optimal to delay their purchase due to expected price savings, but find it inconvenient to do so, a friction is introduced that decreases net consumer surplus in the market

Austrian-style gasoline price regulation: How it may backfire

In January 2011, a price regulation was established in the Austrian gasoline market which prohibits firms from raising their prices more than once per day. Similar restrictions have been discussed in New York State and Germany. Despite their intuitive appeal, this article argues that Austrian-type policies may actually harm consumers. In a two-period duopoly model with consumer search, I show that in face of the regulation, firms will distort their prices intertemporally in such a way that their aggregate expected profit remains unchanged. This implies that, as some consumers find it optimal to delay their purchase due to expected price savings, but find it inconvenient to do so, a friction is introduced that decreases net consumer surplus in the market

Asymmetric Pricing Caused by Collusion

In many markets, empirical evidence suggests that positive production cost shocks are transmitted more quickly and fully to final prices than negative ones. This article explains asymmetric price adjustment caused by firms imperfectly colluding on supra-competitive price levels. While positive cost shocks are transmitted instantaneously, negative price adjustments only occur once aggregate market demand turns out unexpectedly low. In equilibrium, this can be supported whenever demand is sufficiently stable, and negative cost shocks are not too large

Going to the Discounter: Consumer Search with Local Market Heterogeneities

This article proposes a new rationale for consumer search and mixed-strategy pricing: the presence of local market heterogeneities. In the model, two spatially separated markets, each home to an identical local monopolist, differ in size and their consumers' willingness to pay (e.g., as caused by differences in local income). Consumers observe their native market's price and a flexible subset of them may travel to the other market at strictly positive cost, hoping for a bargain. I show that as long as the proportion of flexible consumers in the high-valuation market is not too large, directed search to the low-valuation market will occur in equilibrium. If the high-valuation market is relatively large in size, the opposed firm faces a commitment problem that induces non-trivial mixed-strategy pricing in equilibrium. In particular, low-valuation consumers are excluded from the product market with positive probability. Informative advertising with price-commitment may decrease market performance

Search and Segregation

Consumers' willingness to pay for an identical product, e.g. as caused by differences in local income or tastes, may differ greatly across locations. Yet, while a large literature examines consumers' optimal price and product-search behavior under various market configurations, the equilibrium effects of such consumer segregation remain unexplored. To this end, I study a stylized model in which two local monopolistic markets differ in size and their consumers' willingness to pay. After observing their native market's price, a subset of flexible consumers may travel to the other market at positive cost, hoping for a bargain. I show that as long as the proportion of flexible high-valuation consumers is not too large, active and directed search to the lower-valuation market will occur in equilibrium. If the higher-valuation market is relatively large in size, complex mixed-strategy pricing emerges in equilibrium. For regulators, increasing the fraction of flexible consumers tends to be more effective than manipulating search costs

Competition with list prices

Retail prices in stores are often lower than widely advertised list prices. We study the competitive role of such list prices in a homogeneous product duopoly where firms first set list prices before setting possibly reduced retail prices. Building on Varian (1980), we assume that some consumers observe no prices, some observe all prices, and some only observe the more salient list prices. We show that when the latter group chooses myopically, firms' ability to use list prices lowers average transaction prices. This effect is weakened when these consumers are rational. The possibility to use list prices facilitates collusion.</p

Price promotions as a threat to brands

Manufacturers frequently resist heavy discounting of their products by retailers. Since low prices should increase demand and manufacturers could simply refuse to fund deep price promotions, such resistance is puzzling at first sight. We develop a model in which price promotions cause shoppers to evaluate the relative importance of quality and price against a market‐wide reference point. With deep discounting, consumers perceive quality differences as less pronounced, eroding brand value and the bargaining position of brand manufacturers. This reduces their profits and may even lead to a delisting of their products. By linking price promotions to increased one‐stop shopping and more intense retail competition, our theory also offers an explanation for the rise of store brands

Searching for Treatment

When experts have superior information on their customers' needs and appropriate treatment/repair/advice is a credence good, there are obvious incentives for opportunistic behavior. What compounds this is that experts regularly make treatment recommendations and price offers only after consumers have approached them, creating additional market power due to search costs. In our model, an expert enjoys monopoly power on diagnosis and major treatments, but has limited market power on minor treatments due to fringe competition. The expert's treatment offer only gets revealed to consumers upon visit, and both searching the expert and fringe firms is costly. For search costs that are not excessively high, in equilibrium the expert inappropriately proposes major treatment to all or a fraction of low-severity consumers, which they respectively accept all or some of the time. Next to wasteful overtreatment, further inefficiencies arise in the latter case, as some high-severity consumers mistakenly leave the expert, and some low-severity consumers incur unnecessary search costs. Total welfare is non-monotonic in search costs and may even be maximized when these are large. Expert competition often does not, or only partly, alleviate market distortions