Fending Off Critics of Platform Power with Differential Revenue Sharing: Doing Well by Doing Good?

Manag. Sci. Pub Date : 2022-09-14 DOI:10.1287/mnsc.2022.4545
H. Bhargava, Kitty Wang, X. Zhang
{"title":"Fending Off Critics of Platform Power with Differential Revenue Sharing: Doing Well by Doing Good?","authors":"H. Bhargava, Kitty Wang, X. Zhang","doi":"10.1287/mnsc.2022.4545","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many digital platforms have accrued enormous power and scale, leveraging cross-side network effects between the sides they connect (e.g., producers and consumers or creators and viewers). Platforms motivate a diverse spectrum of producers, large and small, to participate by sharing platform revenue with them, predominantly under a linear revenue-sharing scheme with the same commission rate regardless of producer power or size. Under pressure from society, lawsuits, and antitrust investigations, major platforms have announced revenue sharing designs that favor smaller businesses. We develop a model of platform economics and show that a small-business oriented (SBO) differential revenue sharing design can increase total welfare and outputs on the platform. Although smaller producers almost always benefit from the shift in revenue sharing design, spillover effects can also make large producers better off under some conditions. More interestingly, we show that platforms are the most likely winner under a differential revenue sharing scheme. Hence, an intervention that ostensibly offers concessions and generous treatment to producers might well be self-serving for platforms and good for the entire ecosystem. This paper was accepted by David Simchi-Levi, information systems–fast track.","PeriodicalId":18208,"journal":{"name":"Manag. Sci.","volume":"71 1","pages":"8249-8260"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Manag. Sci.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4545","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Many digital platforms have accrued enormous power and scale, leveraging cross-side network effects between the sides they connect (e.g., producers and consumers or creators and viewers). Platforms motivate a diverse spectrum of producers, large and small, to participate by sharing platform revenue with them, predominantly under a linear revenue-sharing scheme with the same commission rate regardless of producer power or size. Under pressure from society, lawsuits, and antitrust investigations, major platforms have announced revenue sharing designs that favor smaller businesses. We develop a model of platform economics and show that a small-business oriented (SBO) differential revenue sharing design can increase total welfare and outputs on the platform. Although smaller producers almost always benefit from the shift in revenue sharing design, spillover effects can also make large producers better off under some conditions. More interestingly, we show that platforms are the most likely winner under a differential revenue sharing scheme. Hence, an intervention that ostensibly offers concessions and generous treatment to producers might well be self-serving for platforms and good for the entire ecosystem. This paper was accepted by David Simchi-Levi, information systems–fast track.
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
用差异化收入分成抵挡对平台权力的批评:做得好就做得好?
许多数字平台已经积累了巨大的力量和规模,利用了它们连接的双方(例如,生产者和消费者或创作者和观众)之间的横向网络效应。平台鼓励各种各样的生产商,无论大小,通过与他们分享平台收入来参与其中,主要是在线性收入分享计划下,无论生产商的实力或规模如何,都有相同的佣金率。在社会、诉讼和反垄断调查的压力下,各大平台都宣布了有利于小企业的收入分成设计。我们建立了一个平台经济学模型,并证明了面向小企业(SBO)的差异收益共享设计可以增加平台上的总福利和产出。尽管小规模生产者几乎总是从收入分享设计的转变中受益,但在某些条件下,溢出效应也会使大型生产者受益。更有趣的是,我们表明,在差异收入分享方案下,平台最有可能成为赢家。因此,表面上向生产者提供让步和慷慨待遇的干预可能对平台来说是自私的,对整个生态系统都是有益的。这篇论文被信息系统快车道的David Simchi-Levi接受。
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
Disclosure in Incentivized Reviews: Does It Protect Consumers? Can Blockchain Technology Help Overcome Contractual Incompleteness? Evidence from State Laws Utility Tokens, Network Effects, and Pricing Power Decentralized Platforms: Governance, Tokenomics, and ICO Design The Conceptual Flaws of Decentralized Automated Market Making
×
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