Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
article

Selling or Leasing? Pricing Information Goods with Depreciation of Consumer Valuation

Published: 01 September 2017 Publication History

Abstract

Should a monopolistic vendor adopt the selling model or the leasing model for information goods or services? We study this question in the context of consumer valuation depreciation. Using a two-period game-theoretic model, we consider two types of consumer valuation depreciation for information goods or services: vintage depreciation and individual depreciation. Vintage depreciation assumes that a good or service loses some of its appeal to consumers as it becomes dated, and this effect persists independent of usage. Individual depreciation instead assumes that valuation depreciation happens only for consumers who have consumed or experienced the good or service. We identify conditions under which each pricing model is preferred. For vintage depreciation information goods, the leasing model dominates the selling model in vendor profit. For individual depreciation information goods, the selling model dominates the leasing model as long as the magnitude of individual depreciation exceeds a certain threshold; otherwise, leasing dominates selling. We consider several model extensions such as when network effects are present. Furthermore, we show a negative interaction effect between vintage depreciation and network effects in vendor profit. By contrast, the interaction effect between individual depreciation and network effects can be either negative or positive, depending on the magnitude of individual depreciation. Managerial implications are also discussed.

References

[1]
Bagnoli M, Salant SW, Swierzbinski JE (1989) Durable-goods monopoly with discrete demand. J. Political Econom. 97(6):1459-1478.
[2]
Bensaid B (1996) Dynamic monopoly pricing with network externalities. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. 14(6):837-855.
[3]
Bensaid B, Lesne JP (1996) Dynamic monopoly pricing with network externalities. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. 14(6):837-855.
[4]
Bhargava HK, Chen RR (2012) The benefit of information asymmetry: When to sell to informed customers? Decision Support Systems 53(3):345-356.
[5]
Bhargava HK, Sundaresan S (2004) Computing as utility: Managing availability, commitment, and pricing through contingent bid auctions. J. Management Inform. Systems 21(2):201-227.
[6]
Bhaskaran SR, Gilbert SM (2005) Selling and leasing strategies for durable goods with complementary products. Management Sci. 51(8):1278-1290.
[7]
Bhaskaran SR, Gilbert SM (2009) Implications of channel structure for leasing or selling durable goods. Marketing Sci. 28(5):918-934.
[8]
Bond EW, Samuelson L (1984) Durable good monopolies with rational expectations and replacement sales. RAND J. Econom. 15(3):336-345.
[9]
Bulow JI (1982) Durable goods monopolists. J. Political Econom. 90(2):314-332.
[10]
Chien HK, Chu CYC (2008) Sale or lease? Durable-goods monopoly with network effects. Marketing Sci. 27(6):1012-1019.
[11]
Choudhary V (2007) Software as a service: Implications for investment in software development. Sprague RH Jr, ed. Proc. 40th Hawaii Internat. Conf. System Sci. (IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC).
[12]
Coase RH (1972) Durability and monopoly. J. Law Econom. 15(1):143-149.
[13]
Conlisk JE, Gerstner E, Sobel J (1984) Cyclic pricing by a durable goods monopolist. Quart. J. Econom. 99(3):489-505.
[14]
Conner KR (1995) Obtaining strategic advantage from being imitated: When can encouraging "clones" pay? Management Sci. 41(2):209-225.
[15]
Desai P, Purohit D (1998) Leasing and selling: Optimal marketing strategies for a durable goods firm. Management Sci. 44(11):S19-S34.
[16]
Farrell J, Saloner G (1986) Installed base and compatibility: Innovation, product preannouncements, and predation. Amer. Econom. Rev. 76(5):940-955.
[17]
Fudenberg D, Tirole J (1991) Game Theory (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
[18]
Gul F, Sonnenschein HF, Wilson R (1986) Foundations of dynamic monopoly and the Coase conjecture. J. Econom. Theory 39(1): 155-190.
[19]
Hu JY (2005) Essays on Internet markets and information goods. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
[20]
Huang KW, Sundararajan A (2005) Pricing models for on-demand computing. Working paper, Stern School of Business, New York University, New York.
[21]
Ishihara M, Ching A (2012) Dynamic demand for new and used durable goods without physical depreciation: The case of Japanese video games. Working paper, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto.
[22]
Jain S, Kannan PK (2002) Pricing of information products on online servers: issues, models, and analysis. Management Sci. 48(9): 1123-1142.
[23]
Jing B (2007) Network externalities and market segmentation in a monopoly. Econom. Lett. 95(1):7-13.
[24]
Johnson JP, Myatt DP (2003) Multiproduct quality competition: Fighting brands and product line pruning. Amer. Econom. Rev. 93(3):748-774.
[25]
Johnson JP, Myatt DP (2006) On the simple economics of advertising, marketing, and product design. Amer. Econom. Rev. 96(3):756-784.
[26]
Katz ML, Shapiro C (1985) Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. Amer. Econom. Rev. 75(3):424-440.
[27]
Katz ML, Shapiro C (1986) Technology adoption in the presence of network externalities. J. Political Econom. 94(4):822-841.
[28]
Katz ML, Shapiro C (1992) Product introduction with network externalities. J. Indust. Econom. 40(1):55-83.
[29]
Mason R (2000) Network externalities and the Coase conjecture. Eur. Econom. Rev. 44(10):1981-1992.
[30]
Shapiro C, Varian HR (1999) Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy (Harvard Business Press, Boston).
[31]
Shiller BR (2013) Digital distribution and the prohibition of resale markets for information goods. Quant. Marketing Econom. 11(4):403-435.
[32]
Stokey NL (1979) Intertemporal price discrimination. Quart. J. Econom. 93(3):355-371.
[33]
Suslow VY (1986) Commitment and monopoly pricing in durable goods models. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. 4(4):451-460.
[34]
Swan PL (1970) Durability of consumption goods. Amer. Econom. Rev. 60(5):884-894.
[35]
Zhang J, Seidmann A (2010) Perpetual versus subscription licensing under quality uncertainty and network externality effects. J. Management Inform. Systems 27(1):39-68.

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Information Systems Research
Information Systems Research  Volume 28, Issue 3
September 2017
233 pages

Publisher

INFORMS

Linthicum, MD, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 September 2017
Accepted: 11 January 2017
Received: 12 December 2013

Author Tags

  1. individual depreciation
  2. information goods or services
  3. leasing
  4. network effects
  5. pricing strategies
  6. selling
  7. vintage depreciation

Qualifiers

  • Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 0
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 22 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

View options

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media