Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Platforms: a multiplicity of research opportunities

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Platforms refer to intermediaries that facilitate economic interaction between two sets of agents wherein the decisions of one set of agents are likely to have an effect on the other via direct and/or indirect externalities. Given their nature, platforms need to find the appropriate balance between the competing objectives of agents and act as catalysts by facilitating the beneficial effects of externalities. In this paper, we discuss the current theoretical and empirical literature on two-sided platforms. We then identify three dimensions that offer opportunities to advance the empirical literature: (a) unanswered theoretical and conceptual questions, (b) data-related opportunities, and (c) methodological challenges.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. If there is only one intermediary, then agents are “single-homing,” else they are “multi-homing.” Participation and profitability are different in these two settings (discussed later in detail).

References

  • Ackerberg, D. A., & Gowrisankaran, G. (2006). Quantifying equilibrium network externalities in the ACH banking industry. RAND Journal of Economics, 37(3), 738–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argentesi, E., & Filistrucchi, L. (2007). Estimating market power in a two-sided market: the case of newspapers. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(7), 1247–1266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, M. (2006). Competition in two-sided markets. RAND Journal of Economics, 37(3), 668–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergemann, D., & Bonatti, A. (2011). Targeting in advertising markets: implications for offline vs. online media. The Rand Journal of Economics, 42, 414–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, S. (1992). Estimation of a model of entry in the airline industry. Econometrica, 60(4), 889–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besen, S., & Johnson, L. (1986). Compatibility standards, competition, and innovation in the broadcasting industry, Rand Corporation.

  • Bresnahan, T., & Reiss, P. (1991). Empirical models of discrete games. Journal of Econometrics, 48, 57–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabral, L., & Hortacsu, A. (2010). The dynamics of seller reputation: evidence from ebay. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 58(1), 54–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caillaud, B., & Jullien, B. (2003). Chicken & egg: competition among intermediation service providers. RAND Journal of Economics, 34(2), 309–328. Summer 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandra, A., & Collard-Wexler, A. (2009). Mergers in two-sided markets: an application to the Canadian newspaper industry. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18(4), 1045–1070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y., & Xie, J. (2007). Cross-market network effect with asymmetric customer loyalty: implications for competitive advantage. Marketing Science, 26(1), 52–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, J., & Manchanda, P. (2013). Quantifying cross-network effects in online C2C platforms, Working Paper.

  • Clements, M. T., & Ohashi, H. (2005). Indirect network effects and the product cycle: video games in the U.S., 1994–2002. Journal of Industrial Economics, 53(4), 515–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewenter, R., Haucaup, J., & Wenzel, T. (2011). Semi-collusion in media markets. International Review of Law and Economics, 31(2011), 92–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubé, J.-P. H., Hitsch, G. J., & Chintagunta, P. K. (2010). Tipping and concentration in markets with indirect network effects. Marketing Science, 29(2), 216–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esteban-Bravo, M., & Vidal-Sanz, J. (2013). A nonlinear product differentiation model à la cournot: a new look at the newspaper industry Working Paper.

  • Evans, D. S. (2003). The antitrust economics of multi-sided platform markets. Yale Journal on Regulation, 20(2), 325–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, D., & Schmalensee, R. (2008). Markets with two-sided platforms, Issues in Competition Law and Policy.

  • Fan, Y. (2013). Ownership consolidation and product quality: a study of the U.S. daily newspaper market, American Economic Review, Forthcoming.

  • Farrell, J., & Klemperer, P. (2007). Coordination and lock-in: competition with switching costs and network effects. Handbook of Industrial Organization, 3, 1967–2072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filistrucchi, L., Klein, T. J., & Michielsen, T. O. (2012). Assessing unilateral merger effects in a two-sided market: an application to the Dutch daily newspaper market. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 8(2), 297–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gandal, N., Kende, M., & Rob, R. (2000). The dynamics of technological adoption in hardware/software systems: the case of compact disc players. RAND Journal of Economics, 31(1), 43–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handel, B., Hendel, I., & Whinston, M. (2013). Equilibria in health exchanges: adverse selection vs. reclassification risk, Working paper.

  • Hagiu, A. (2006). Pricing and commitment by two‐sided platforms. The RAND Journal of Economics, 37(3), 720–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagiu, A. (2007). Merchant or two-sided platform? Review of Network Economics, 6(2), 115–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagiu, & Spulber. (2013). First-party content and coordination in two-sided markets. Forthcoming. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy.

  • Hagiu, & Wright. (2011). Multi-sided platforms. HBS Working paper.

  • Hagiu, & Wright. (2013). Marketplace or re-seller. HBS Working paper.

  • Kaiser, U., & Wright, J. (2006). Price structure in two-sided markets: evidence from the magazine industry. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, R. S., & Pakes, A. (2009). Multiple equilibria and selection by learning in an applied setting. Economic Letters, 104(1), 13–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemley, M. A., & McGowan, D. (1998). Legal implications of network economic effects. California Law Review, 86(3), 479–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, H. (2010). Dynamics of pricing in the video game console market: skimming or penetration? Journal of Marketing Research, 47(2), 428–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, L., Srinivasan, K., Sun, B. (2013). Dynamics of production and linking at content websites, Working Paper.

  • Manski, C., & Pepper, J. (2000). Monotone instrumental variables: with an application to the returns to schooling. Econometrica, 68(4), 997–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manski, C., & Pepper, J. (2009). More on monotone instrumental variables. The Econometrics Journal, 12, S200–S216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nair, H., Chintagunta, P., & Dube, J.-P. (2004). Empirical analysis of indirect network effects in the market for personal digital assistants. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 2, 23–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pattabhiramaiah, A., Sriram, S., & Sridhar, S. (2013). Rising prices under declining preferences: the case of the U.S. print newspaper industry, Working Paper.

  • Resnick, P., & Zeckhauser, R. (2002). Trust among strangers in Internet transactions: empirical analysis of eBay’s reputation system. Advances in Applied Microeconomics, 11, 127–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, P., Zeckhauser, R., Swanson, J., & Lockwood, K. (2006). The value of reputation on eBay: a controlled experiment. Experimental Economics, 9(2), 79–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rochet, J.-C., & Tirole, J. (2003). Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4), 990–1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruhmer, I. (2011). Platform collusion in two-sided markets, Working Paper, Mannheim University, http://www.vwl.uni-mannheim.de/gk/ruhmer/Ruhmer 2011.pdf.

  • Rysman, M. (2004). Competition between networks: a study of the market for yellow pages. The Review of Economic Studies, 71(2), 483–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rysman, M. (2009). The economics of two-sided markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(3), 125–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seamans, R., & Zhu, F. (2013). Responses to entry in multi-sided markets: the impact of craigslist on local newspapers, Management Science, Forthcoming.

  • Shriver, S. (2013). Network effects in alternative fuel adoption: empirical analysis of the market for ethanol, Discussion paper, Columbia University.

  • Shriver, S., Nair, H., & Hofstetter, R. (2013). Social ties and user-generated content: evidence from an online social network. Management Science, 59(6), 1425–1443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, M. (2013). Estimating platform market power in two-sided markets with an application to magazine advertising, Working Paper.

  • Sridhar, S., & Sriram, S. (2013). Is online newspaper advertising cannibalizing print advertising? Working paper.

  • Subramanian, U., & Rao, R.C. (2013). An equilibrium analysis of daily deal strategies and consumer learning of merchant quality, Working paper.

  • Tucker, C., & Zhang, J. (2010). Growing two-sided networks by advertising the user base: a field experiment. Marketing Science, 29(5), 805–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilbur, K. C. (2008). A two-sided, empirical model of television advertising and viewing markets. Marketing Science, 27(3), 356–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yao, S., & Mela, C. F. (2008). Online auction demand. Marketing Science, 27(5), 861–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    S. Sriram & Puneet Manchanda

  2. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Mercedes Esteban Bravo

  3. National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Junhong Chu

  4. University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

    Liye Ma

  5. University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA

    Minjae Song

  6. Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Scott Shriver

  7. University of Texas, Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA

    Upender Subramanian

Authors
  1. S. Sriram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Puneet Manchanda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mercedes Esteban Bravo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Junhong Chu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Liye Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Minjae Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Scott Shriver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Upender Subramanian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Sriram.

Additional information

This paper is based on the discussion among participants in a workshop (with the same title) at the 9th Invitational Choice Symposium at Erasmus University, the Netherlands, in June 2013. We are very grateful to the cochairs, Benedict Dellaert and Bas Donkers, for giving us the opportunity to hold this workshop at the symposium. Please direct all feedback to the cochairs at ssrira@umich.edu and pmanchan@umich.edu. The usual disclaimer applies.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sriram, S., Manchanda, P., Bravo, M.E. et al. Platforms: a multiplicity of research opportunities. Mark Lett 26, 141–152 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-014-9314-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-014-9314-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation