Value-added service investing and pricing strategies for a two-sided platform under investing resource constraint

Investing on value-added service (VAS) amplifies users’ participation and platform profit. However, the investing resource is usually limited in practice. This paper investigates VAS investing and pricing strategies for a two-sided platform under investing resource constraint. We reveal that with VAS investment, Subsidizing can still be done to enlarge users’ demand, even when the investing cost becomes higher. For optimal pricing strategies, the network effect will be the dominating determinant if the gap between two marginal cross-side benefits (i.e. the benefit that users obtain when each new user join the other side of the platform) is large. Interestingly, we show that with the increase of the marginal investing cost, users might either be priced higher or lower. If the marginal investing cost increases to a high level, and the gap between the two marginal cross-side benefits is large, lowering the access fee for users possessing the higher cross-side network effect does not necessarily compensate more profit loss caused by higher cost. Moreover, after VAS is developed, raising the access fee for those whose marginal investing benefit is large does not necessarily generate more profit as well. The opposite strategy further enlarges users’ utility, and promotes the investment to benefit more users.

[1]  Helder Vasconcelos Is exclusionary pricing anticompetitive in two-sided markets? , 2015 .

[2]  Geoffrey G. Parker,et al.  Two-Sided Network Effects: A Theory of Information Product Design , 2010, Manag. Sci..

[3]  Wei-Jaw Deng,et al.  The relationships among service quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and post-purchase intention in mobile value-added services , 2009, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[4]  Evangelos N. Gazis,et al.  Value added service management in 3G networks , 2002, NOMS 2002. IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium. ' Management Solutions for the New Communications World'(Cat. No.02CH37327).

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

[6]  Mei Lin,et al.  Dynamic Platform Pricing with Innovative Products , 2016 .

[7]  Yong Chao,et al.  Mixed Bundling in Two-Sided Markets in the Presence of Installed Base Effects , 2012 .

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

[9]  Xiangyu Liu,et al.  The pricing of product and value-added service under information asymmetry: a product life cycle perspective , 2015 .

[10]  A. Gawer,et al.  Platform Leadership How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco Drive Industry Innovation , 2002 .

[11]  Tobias Wenzel,et al.  Piracy in a two-sided software market ☆ , 2013 .

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

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

[14]  Qihong Liu,et al.  Price Discrimination in Two‐Sided Markets , 2012 .

[15]  Geoffrey G. Parker,et al.  Innovation, openness & platform control , 2010, EC '10.

[16]  Andrei Hagiu Two-Sided Platforms: Product Variety and Pricing Structures , 2009 .

[17]  Aaron Schiff Basic Pricing Principles in Two-Sided Markets: Some Simple Models , 2007 .

[18]  Andrei Hagiu,et al.  First-Party Content and Coordination in Two-Sided Markets , 2013, Manag. Sci..

[19]  Hanna Halaburda,et al.  Information and Two-Sided Platform Profits , 2014 .

[20]  Edward G. Anderson,et al.  Platform Performance Investment in the Presence of Network Externalities , 2013, Inf. Syst. Res..