Contingency Pricing for Information Goods and Services Under Industrywide Performance Standard

This paper demonstrates that quality-contingent pricing is a useful mechanism for mitigating the negative effects of quality uncertainty in e-commerce and information technology services. Under contingency pricing of an information good or service, the firm preannounces a rebate for poor performance. Consumers determine performance probabilities using publicly available historical performance data, and the firm may have additional private information with respect to its future probability distribution. Examining the monopoly case, we explicate the critical role of private information and differences in belief between the firm and market in the choice of pricing scheme. Contingent pricing is useful when the market underestimates the firm's performance; then it is optimal for the firm to offer a full-price rebate for mis-performance, with a correspondingly higher price for meeting the performance standard. We study the competitive value of contingency pricing in a duopoly setting where the firms differ in their probabilities of meeting the performance standard, but are identical in other respects. Contingency pricing is a dominant strategy for a firm when the market underestimates the firm's performance. Whereas both firms would earn equal profits if they were constrained to standard pricing, the superior firm earns greater profits under contingency pricing by setting lower expected prices. We show that contingency pricing is efficient as well, and consumer surplus increases because more consumers buy from the superior firm.

[1]  K. Bagwell,et al.  High and Declining Prices Signal Product Quality , 1991 .

[2]  Steven A. Matthews,et al.  MONOPOLY PROVISION OF QUALITY AND WARRANTIES: AN EXPLORATION IN THE THEORY OF MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCREENING , 1987 .

[3]  Michael R Kehoe Quality Uncertainty and Price in Monopoly Markets , 1996 .

[4]  Anthony Creane,et al.  Uncertain Product Quality, Optimal Pricing and Product Development , 2002, Ann. Oper. Res..

[5]  M. Bazerman,et al.  Betting on the future: the virtues of contingent contracts. , 1999, Harvard business review.

[6]  Gerard J. Tellis,et al.  Competitive Price and Quality Under Asymmetric Information , 1987 .

[7]  Barry Phillips,et al.  Have Storage Area Networks Come of Age? , 1998, Computer.

[8]  Hemant K. Bhargava,et al.  Optimal Design of Contingency Pricing in IT-Intensive Commerce , 2002, ICIS.

[9]  Vineet Padmanabhan,et al.  Warranties, extended warranties, and product quality , 1998 .

[10]  S. Rosen,et al.  Monopoly and product quality , 1978 .

[11]  Eitan Gerstner,et al.  Contingent Pricing to Reduce Price Risks , 2004 .

[12]  E. Maskin,et al.  Monopoly with Incomplete Information , 1984 .

[13]  K. Srinivasan,et al.  Signaling Quality with a Money-Back Guarantee: The Role of Transaction Costs , 1995 .

[14]  S. Salop Monopolistic competition with outside goods , 1979 .

[15]  Laurianne McLaughlin,et al.  An eye on India: outsourcing debate continues , 2003 .

[16]  Lixin Tao,et al.  Shifting Paradigms with the Application Service Provider Model , 2001, Computer.

[17]  B. Schneier,et al.  The case for outsourcing security , 2002 .

[18]  Duncan P. Mann,et al.  Money-Back Contracts with Double Moral Hazard , 1988 .