Third-Party Data Providers Ruin Simple Mechanisms

Motivated by the growing prominence of third-party data providers in online marketplaces, this paper studies the impact of the presence of third-party data providers on mechanism design. When no data provider is present, it has been shown that simple mechanisms are "good enough'' --- they can achieve a constant fraction of the revenue of optimal mechanisms. The results in this paper demonstrate that this is no longer true in the presence of a third-party data provider who can provide the bidder with a signal that is correlated with the item type. Specifically, even with a single seller, a single bidder, and a single item of uncertain type for sale, the strategies of pricing each item-type separately (the analog of item pricing for multi-item auctions) and bundling all item-types under a single price (the analog of grand bundling) can both simultaneously be a logarithmic factor worse than the optimal revenue. Further, in the presence of a data provider, item-type partitioning mechanisms---a more general class of mechanisms which divide item-types into disjoint groups and offer prices for each group---still cannot achieve within a $łog łog$ factor of the optimal revenue. Thus, our results highlight that the presence of a data-provider forces the use of more complicated mechanisms in order to achieve a constant fraction of the optimal revenue.

[1]  Roger B. Myerson,et al.  Optimal Auction Design , 1981, Math. Oper. Res..

[2]  S. Hart,et al.  Maximal revenue with multiple goods: Nonmonotonicity and other observations , 2015 .

[3]  Noam Nisan,et al.  Approximate revenue maximization with multiple items , 2012, EC '12.

[4]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  Simple versus optimal mechanisms , 2009, SECO.

[5]  Peter Bro Miltersen,et al.  Send mixed signals: earn more, work less , 2012, EC '12.

[6]  Christos Tzamos,et al.  Does Information Revelation Improve Revenue? , 2016, EC.

[7]  Péter Eso,et al.  Optimal Information Disclosure in Auctions and the Handicap Auction , 2007 .

[8]  Shuchi Chawla,et al.  Mechanism Design for Subadditive Agents via an Ex Ante Relaxation , 2016, EC.

[9]  Li Han,et al.  Mixture Selection, Mechanism Design, and Signaling , 2015, 2015 IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[10]  FeldmanMichal,et al.  Signaling Schemes for Revenue Maximization , 2014, EC 2014.

[11]  Yang Cai,et al.  Simple mechanisms for subadditive buyers via duality , 2016, STOC.

[12]  Alex Smolin,et al.  Disclosure and Pricing of Attributes , 2017, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[13]  Andrew Chi-Chih Yao,et al.  On revenue maximization for selling multiple independently distributed items , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  Revenue submodularity , 2009, EC '09.

[15]  J. Ganuza,et al.  Ignorance Promotes Competition: An Auction Model with Endogenous Private Valuations , 2003 .

[16]  S. Matthew Weinberg,et al.  Simple Mechanisms for a Subadditive Buyer and Applications to Revenue Monotonicity , 2018, ACM Trans. Economics and Comput..

[17]  Inbal Talgam-Cohen,et al.  Prediction and Welfare in Ad Auctions , 2016, Theory of Computing Systems.