Defining Markets for Multi-Sided Platforms: The Case of Search Engines

Thomas Hoppner
{"title":"Defining Markets for Multi-Sided Platforms: The Case of Search Engines","authors":"Thomas Hoppner","doi":"10.54648/woco2015030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite the rise of two- or multi-sided platforms in the digital sector, there is not yet an established antitrust policy for defining relevant markets that involve such platforms. Difficulties arise in particular where services are granted for free to some users. This article explains which platform user groups form separate (sub-)markets and with which quantitative and qualitative methods substitution relationships can be assessed for each sub-market. Considering the need to take account of the interactions between all user groups of a multi-sided platform, it is suggested that separate relevant markets should be recognized for each user group with differing demands that individually interacts with the platform in order to procure a service. Such interaction requires direct contact and an exchange between user and platform. It does not, however, pre-suppose any payment stream as users may also ‘pay’ with personal data, their attention or the granting of usage rights. Consequently, search engines, for instance, form a three-sided market consisting of i) a market for online search advertising existing between search providers and advertisers, ii) a market for web search services existing between search providers and Internet users, and iii) a market for indexing content existing between search providers and website operators.","PeriodicalId":306463,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Other Law & Society: Public Law - Antitrust (Topic)","volume":"95 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Other Law & Society: Public Law - Antitrust (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/woco2015030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

Despite the rise of two- or multi-sided platforms in the digital sector, there is not yet an established antitrust policy for defining relevant markets that involve such platforms. Difficulties arise in particular where services are granted for free to some users. This article explains which platform user groups form separate (sub-)markets and with which quantitative and qualitative methods substitution relationships can be assessed for each sub-market. Considering the need to take account of the interactions between all user groups of a multi-sided platform, it is suggested that separate relevant markets should be recognized for each user group with differing demands that individually interacts with the platform in order to procure a service. Such interaction requires direct contact and an exchange between user and platform. It does not, however, pre-suppose any payment stream as users may also ‘pay’ with personal data, their attention or the granting of usage rights. Consequently, search engines, for instance, form a three-sided market consisting of i) a market for online search advertising existing between search providers and advertisers, ii) a market for web search services existing between search providers and Internet users, and iii) a market for indexing content existing between search providers and website operators.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
定义多边平台的市场:以搜索引擎为例
尽管数字领域的双边或多边平台兴起,但尚未有一个既定的反垄断政策来定义涉及此类平台的相关市场。在向某些用户免费提供服务的情况下,尤其会出现困难。本文解释了哪些平台用户组形成了单独的(子)市场,以及使用哪些定量和定性方法可以评估每个子市场的替代关系。考虑到需要考虑到多边平台的所有用户群体之间的互动,建议应为每个用户群体确认单独的相关市场,这些用户群体有不同的需求,他们单独与平台互动以获取服务。这种交互需要用户和平台之间的直接接触和交流。然而,它并没有预先假设任何支付流,因为用户也可以用个人数据、他们的注意力或使用权的授予来“支付”。因此,例如,搜索引擎形成了一个三方市场,包括i)搜索提供商和广告商之间存在的在线搜索广告市场,ii)搜索提供商和互联网用户之间存在的网络搜索服务市场,以及iii)搜索提供商和网站运营商之间存在的内容索引市场。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
'Competition Overdose': Curing Markets from Themselves? Ten Points for Discussion Exploitative Abuses: Recent Trends and Comparative Perspectives Setting the Edge: How the NCAA Can Defend Amateurism by Allowing Third Party Compensation Competition in Digital Markets: A Review of Expert Reports The Israeli Statute on National Book Price Maintenance - A Critical Evaluation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1