Advertisement

Optimal revenue sharing in platform markets: a Stackelberg model

  • Minhyuk Sur
  • Deok-Joo LeeEmail author
  • Kyung-Taek Kim
Research Article
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

Because of its ability to generate many revenue streams, the platform business has received much attention in recent years, and the revenue sharing problem between platform providers and service providers is a key issue. We adopted the Stackelberg model to analyze the optimal revenue sharing rates between these two parties when the platform provider acts as a leader, while the service providers are followers. We derive the closed form of optimal revenue sharing rates as the equilibrium of the Stackelberg model. Numerical experiments with graphical illustrations are presented to demonstrate the optimality of revenue sharing rates whereby the two parties maximize their own profits. In addition, on the basis of the results of optimal revenue sharing rates, the present study performs sensitivity analyses with regard to various exogenous variables that could affect the optimal revenue sharing rates. Our findings indicate that potential demand was the most significant factor in affecting optimal revenue sharing. Therefore, decision makers should carefully monitor their platform business markets to maximize the profits of all the parties involved.

Keywords

Revenue management Revenue sharing Platform business Stackelberg model 

Notes

Acnowledgements

This work was supported by the Research Resettlement Fund for the new faculty of Seoul National University. The authors appreciate the administrative support for this work from the Institute for Industrial Systems Engineering of Seoul National University.

References

  1. Abbate, T., D. De Luca, A. Gaeta, M. Lepore, S. Miranda, and M. Perano. 2015. Analysis of open innovation intermediaries platforms by considering the smart service system perspective. Procedia Manufacturing 3: 3575–3582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boudreau, K. 2010. Open platform strategies and innovation: Granting access vs. devolving control. Management Science 56 (10): 1849–1872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, C. 2016. 3 question to ask before adopting a platform business model. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2016/04/3-questions-to-ask-before-adopting-a-platform-business-model/. Accessed 17 July 2007.
  4. Carroll, G.P., S. Srivastava, A.S. Volini, M.M. Piñeiro-Núñez, and T. Vetman. 2017. Measuring the effectiveness and impact of an open innovation platform. Drug Discovery Today 22 (5): 776–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chakraborty, S., S. Basu, and M. Sharma. 2014. Pricing infrastructure-as-a-service for online two-sided platform providers. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management 12 (3): 199–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chakravarty, A.K., and A.S. Werner. 2011. Telecom service provider portal: Revenue sharing and outsourcing. European Journal of Operational Research 215 (1): 289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chesbrough, H. 2010. Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers. Long Range Planning 43 (2): 354–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dedrick, J., and J. West. 2004. An exploratory study into open source platform adoption. Paper presented at the system sciences on proceedings of the 37th annual Hawaii international conference, 2004.Google Scholar
  9. Eisenmann, T.R. 2006. Platform-mediated networks: Definitions and core concepts. Harvard Business Review 84 (10): 92.Google Scholar
  10. El Ouardighi, F., and B. Kim. 2010. Supply quality management with wholesale price and revenue-sharing contracts under horizontal competition. European Journal of Operational Research 206 (2): 329–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Evans, D., A. Hagiu, and R. Schmalensee. 2006. Invisible engines: How software platforms drive innovation and transform industries. Cambridge: MIT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Friesz, T.L., R. Mookherjee, and M.A. Rigdon. 2005. An evolutionary game-theoretic model of network revenue management in oligopolistic competition. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management 4 (2): 156–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gawer, A., and R. Henderson. 2007. Platform owner entry and innovation in complementary markets: Evidence from Intel. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 16 (1): 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibbons, Robert. 1992. Game theory for applied economists. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gogan, J.L., and U.J. Gelinas. 2007. Managing the Internet Payment Platform project. Journal of Information Technology 22 (4): 410–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Govindan, K., and M.N. Popiuc. 2014. Reverse supply chain coordination by revenue sharing contract: A case for the personal computers industry. European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2): 326–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grauberger, W., and A. Kimms. 2016. Revenue management under horizontal and vertical competition within airline alliances. Omega 59: 228–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gulshan, S.S. 2011. Innovation management: Reaping the benefits of open platforms by assimilating internal and external innovations. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 25: 46–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hagel III, J., J.S. Brown, and L. Davison. 2008. Shaping strategy in a world of constant disruption. Harvard Business Review 86 (10): 80–89.Google Scholar
  20. Jeon, J.-H., S.-K. Kim, and J.-H. Koh. 2015. Historical review on the patterns of open innovation at the national level: The case of the roman period. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 1 (1): 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim, J. 2016. The platform business model and business ecosystem: Quality management and revenue structures. European Planning Studies 24 (12): 2113–2132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kimms, A., and D. Cetiner. 2012. Approximate nucleolus-based revenue sharing in airline alliances. European Journal of Operational Research 220 (2): 510–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Luo, S., and M. Cakanyildirim. 2005. Pricing and production game under revenue sharing and information updates. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management 4 (3): 270–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nosoohi, I., and A.S. Nookabadi. 2018. Approaches to designing the revenue sharing contract under asymmetric cost information. IMA Journal of Management Mathematics 29 (1): 69–97.Google Scholar
  25. Oh, J., B. Koh, and S. Raghunathan. 2015. Value appropriation between the platform provider and app developers in mobile platform mediated networks. Journal of Information Technology 30 (3): 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ondrus, J., A. Gannamaneni, and K. Lyytinen. 2015. The impact of openness on the market potential of multi-sided platforms: A case study of mobile payment platforms. Journal of Information Technology 30 (3): 260–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Parker, G., and M. Van Alstyne. 2010. Innovation, openness & platform control. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 11th ACM conference on electronic commerce.Google Scholar
  28. Qin, Z. 2008. Towards integration: A revenue-sharing contract in a supply chain. IMA Journal of Management Mathematics 19 (1): 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rochet, J.C., and J. Tirole. 2003. Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the European Economic Association 1 (4): 990–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sawhney, M., G. Verona, and E. Prandelli. 2005. Collaborating to create: The Internet as a platform for customer engagement in product innovation. Journal of interactive marketing 19 (4): 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sheu, J.B. 2011. Marketing-driven channel coordination with revenue-sharing contracts under price promotion to end-customers. European Journal of Operational Research 214 (2): 246–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shiller, B., and J. Waldfogel. 2013. The challenge of revenue sharing with bundled pricing: An application to music. Economic Inquiry 51 (2): 1155–1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sørensen, C., M. de Reuver, and R.C. Basole. 2015. Mobile platforms and ecosystems. Journal of Information Technology 30 (3): 195–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. West, J. 2003. How open is open enough? Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies. Research Policy 32 (7): 1259–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yang, H., and W. Chen. 2018. Retailer-driven carbon emission abatement with consumer environmental awareness and carbon tax: Revenue-sharing versus cost-sharing. Omega 78: 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yao, Z., S.C.H. Leung, and K.K. Lai. 2008. Manufacturer’s revenue-sharing contract and retail competition. European Journal of Operational Research 186 (2): 637–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhang, J., G. Liu, Q. Zhang, and Z. Bai. 2015. Coordinating a supply chain for deteriorating items with a revenue sharing and cooperative investment contract. Omega 56: 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhu, F., and N. Furr. 2016. Products to platforms: Making the leap. Harvard Business Review 94 (4): 72–78.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringSeoul National UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Energy Policy Research TeamKorea Institute of Energy ResearchDaejeonSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations