Dynamic Platform Competition in a Two-Sided Market: Evidence from the Online Daily Deals Promotion Industry

We empirically study a dynamic platform competition in the online daily deals promotion industry characterized by intense rivalry between two leading promotion sites, Groupon and LivingSocial, that broker between local merchants and local consumers. We find that, for a comparable deal, the incumbent Groupon enjoys a significant advantage in performance measured in the number of coupon sales, which appears largely attributable to its greater network size in the consumer side. Yet LivingSocial successfully enters and quickly increases penetration in this market. We find no evidence that LivingSocial offers consumers more favorable terms on their deals than Groupon. Instead, on the merchant side, we find that LivingSocial poach merchants from Groupon, aided by the publicly available information on individual merchants and deal performance. Poached deals generate greater and more predictable coupon sales than the deals developed internally. While information-based poaching provides a foothold for the entrant in overcoming the initial size disadvantage, over time it turns into a competition-intensifying channel, as Groupon reacts by the same poaching strategy. Our study shows how platforms compete dynamically in a two-sided market with open information structure, thereby complements prior theoretical developments for multi-sided markets.

[1]  M. Iansiti,et al.  Entry into Platform-Based Markets , 2012 .

[2]  Kenneth C. Wilbur A Two-Sided, Empirical Model of Television Advertising and Viewing Markets , 2008, Mark. Sci..

[3]  Marc Rysman,et al.  Competition between Networks: A Study of the Market for Yellow Pages , 2002 .

[4]  X. Zhang,et al.  Group Size and Incentives to Contribute: A Natural Experiment at Chinese Wikipedia , 2010 .

[5]  U. Dholakia,et al.  How Businesses Fare with Daily Deals: A Multi-Site Analysis of Groupon, Livingsocial, Opentable, Travelzoo, and BuyWithMe Promotions , 2011 .

[6]  M. Armstrong,et al.  Two-sided Markets, Competitive Bottlenecks and Exclusive Contracts , 2004 .

[7]  Alisha C. Holland,et al.  A Price Theory of Multi-Sided Platforms , 2009 .

[8]  Ramon Caminal,et al.  ENDOGENOUS SWITCHING COSTS IN A DUOPOLY MODEL , 1990 .

[9]  M. Norton,et al.  What's the Deal with LivingSocial? , 2012 .

[10]  Marc Rysman The Economics of Two-Sided Markets , 2009 .

[11]  Benjamin L. Edelman,et al.  Using Internet Data for Economic Research , 2012 .

[12]  Roberto Roson,et al.  Two-Sided Markets: A Tentative Survey , 2005 .

[13]  J. Rochet,et al.  Platform competition in two sided markets , 2003 .

[14]  J. Rochet,et al.  Two-sided markets: a progress report , 2006 .

[15]  Bruno Jullien,et al.  Competition in Multi-sided Markets: Divide and Conquer , 2011 .

[16]  Ewan Klein,et al.  Natural Language Processing with Python , 2009 .

[17]  B. Caillaud,et al.  Chicken & Egg: Competition Among Intermediation Service Providers , 2003 .

[18]  Curtis R. Taylor,et al.  Supplier Surfing: Competition and Consumer Behavior in Subscription Markets , 1999 .

[19]  D. Fudenberg,et al.  Customer Poaching and Brand Switching , 2000 .

[20]  Curtis R. Taylor Consumer Privacy and the Market for Customer Information , 2004 .

[21]  Byung-Cheol Kim,et al.  Customer Information Sharing: Strategic Incentives and New Implications , 2007 .

[22]  Sonia Jaffe,et al.  To Groupon or not to Groupon: The profitability of deep discounts , 2014 .

[23]  Yongmin Chen,et al.  Paying Customers to Switch , 1997 .

[24]  Feng Zhu,et al.  Technology Shocks in Multi-Sided Markets: The Impact of Craigslist on Local Newspapers , 2010 .

[25]  Andrei Hagiu Pricing and commitment by two‐sided platforms , 2006 .

[26]  M. Armstrong Competition in Two-Sided Markets ¤ , 2005 .

[27]  Bruno Jullien,et al.  Why Do Intermediaries Divert Search? , 2009 .