Platform Pricing in Matching Markets

Existing models of two-sided markets explain why platforms charge different prices between buyers and sellers. Generally, the platform will subsidize participation on a side of the market the higher is that side’s positive cross-side externality to users on the other side of the market. However, in matching markets there also exists a negative own-side congestion externality that the platform internalizes by taxing users for its presence. Assuming a monopoly platform pricing model, the first contribution of this paper is to show that these positive cross-side and negative own-side externalities can be summarized by the matching elasticity derived from a general matching function that captures the efficiency of the platform’s matching technology. The platform charges a lower price to a side of the market the higher is that side’s matching elasticity. The second contribution of this paper is to show that the platform’s pricing strategy only partially internalizes the efficiency of its matching technology, compared to the social optimum. In particular, we discuss the possibility that a monopoly matchmaker sets too high a price on the low-price side of the market and too low a price on the high-price side of the market, resulting in insufficient inequality in prices between sides of the platform.

[1]  Jan Eeckhout,et al.  Sorting and Decentralized Price Competition , 2008 .

[2]  Richard Schmalensee,et al.  Failure to Launch: Critical Mass in Platform Businesses , 2010 .

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

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

[5]  Randall Wright,et al.  Search-Theoretic Models of the Labor Market: A Survey , 2002 .

[6]  Alessandro Pavan,et al.  Price Discrimination in Many-to-Many Matching Markets ! , 2011 .

[7]  Paul Belleflamme,et al.  Negative Intra-Group Externalities in Two-Sided Markets , 2009 .

[8]  Andrei Hagiu,et al.  Quantity vs. Quality: Exclusion by Platforms with Network Effects , 2011 .

[9]  J. Eeckhout,et al.  Identifying Sorting: In Theory , 2011, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[10]  G. Becker Chapter Title: a Theory of Marriage a Theory of Marriage , 2022 .

[11]  J. Sákovics,et al.  Exclusive Nightclubs and Lonely Hearts Columns: Non-Monotone Participation in Optional Intermediation , 2010 .

[12]  Simon P. Anderson,et al.  Information Congestion , 2006 .

[13]  Christoforos Antoniou Pissarides,et al.  Equilibrium Unemployment Theory, Second Edition , 2000 .

[14]  E. Weyl,et al.  Multidimensional Heterogeneity and Platform Design , 2011 .

[15]  C. Pissarides,et al.  Looking into the black box: a survey of the matching function , 2001 .

[16]  Yen-Chih Huang,et al.  A Search-Matching Model of the Buyer--Seller Platforms , 2012 .

[17]  Glenn Ellison,et al.  Knife-Edge or Plateau: When Do Market Models Tip? , 2003 .

[18]  Jan Piskorski,et al.  Platforms and Limits to Network Eects , 2010 .

[19]  C. A. Pissarides,et al.  Equilibrium Unemployment Theory , 1990 .

[20]  Ettore Damiano,et al.  Price discrimination and efficient matching , 2006 .

[21]  A. Spence Monopoly, Quality, and Regulation , 1975 .

[22]  Pricing strategies in two-sided platforms: The role of sellers competition , 2009 .

[23]  S. D. Pangu,et al.  Information congestion , 2003, TENCON 2003. Conference on Convergent Technologies for Asia-Pacific Region.

[24]  Ettore Damiano,et al.  Competing Matchmaking , 2004 .

[25]  T. Trégouët Competition in Matching Technologies ∗ , 2010 .

[26]  Rafael Lopes de Melo Sorting in the Labor Market: Theory and Measurement , 2008 .

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

[28]  Lones Smith,et al.  Assortative Matching and Search , 2000 .

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

[30]  Francis Bloch,et al.  Two-sided search, marriages, and matchmakers , 2000 .

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

[32]  A. Cournot Researches into the Mathematical Principles of the Theory of Wealth , 1898, Forerunners of Realizable Values Accounting in Financial Reporting.