IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/rneart/v21y2022i2p83-110n3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Do Platforms Charge Proportional Fees? Commitment and Seller Participation

Author

Listed:
  • Muthers Johannes

    (Department of Economics, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Altenberger Straße 69, 4040 Linz, Austria)

  • Wismer Sebastian

    (Bundeskartellamt, Bonn, Germany)

Abstract

This paper deals with trade platforms whose operators not only allow third party sellers to offer their products to consumers, but also offer products themselves. In this context, the platform operator faces a hold-up problem if he uses classical two-part tariffs only as potential competition between the platform operator and sellers reduces platform attractiveness. Since some sellers refuse to join the platform, some products that are not known to the platform operator will not be offered at all. We find that revenue-based fees lower the platform operator’s incentives to compete with sellers, increasing platform attractiveness. Therefore, charging such proportional fees can be profitable, which may explain why several trade platforms indeed charge proportional fees.

Suggested Citation

  • Muthers Johannes & Wismer Sebastian, 2022. "Why Do Platforms Charge Proportional Fees? Commitment and Seller Participation," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 21(2), pages 83-110, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:rneart:v:21:y:2022:i:2:p:83-110:n:3
    DOI: 10.1515/rne-2023-0020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/rne-2023-0020
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/rne-2023-0020?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrei Hagiu & Tat‐How Teh & Julian Wright, 2022. "Should platforms be allowed to sell on their own marketplaces?," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 53(2), pages 297-327, June.
    2. Hendrikse, George & Jiang, Tao, 2011. "An Incomplete Contracting Model of Dual Distribution in Franchising," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 87(3), pages 332-344.
    3. Anderson, Simon & Bedre-Defolie, Özlem, 2022. "Online trade platforms: Hosting, selling, or both?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 84, pages 1-15.
    4. Zhu Wang & Julian Wright, 2017. "Ad valorem platform fees, indirect taxes, and efficient price discrimination," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 48(2), pages 467-484, May.
    5. Andrei Hagiu, 2009. "Two‐Sided Platforms: Product Variety and Pricing Structures," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(4), pages 1011-1043, December.
    6. Hagiu Andrei, 2007. "Merchant or Two-Sided Platform?," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-19, June.
    7. Miao Chun-Hui, 2014. "Do Card Users Benefit From the Use of Proportional Fees?," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(3), pages 323-341, January.
    8. Federico Etro, 2021. "Product selection in online marketplaces," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 614-637, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Johannes Muthers & Sebastian Wismer, 2012. "Why Do Platforms Charge Proportional Fees? Commitment and Seller Participation," Working Papers 115, Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE).
    2. Martin Peitz, 2024. "The Economic Theory of Two-Sided Platforms," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2024_584, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    3. Doh-Shin Jeon & Yassine Lefouili & Leonardo Madio, 2021. "Platform Liability and Innovation," Working Papers 21-05, NET Institute.
    4. Michele Bisceglia & Jorge Padilla, 2023. "On sellers' cooperation in hybrid marketplaces," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 207-222, January.
    5. Federico Etro, 2023. "Hybrid Marketplaces with Free Entry of Sellers," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 62(2), pages 119-148, March.
    6. Saruta, Fuyuki, 2023. "Private labels and platform competition," MPRA Paper 119585, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Luca Sandrini & Robert Somogyi, 2022. "News Media Bargaining Codes," Working Papers 22-06, NET Institute.
    8. D’Annunzio, Anna & Russo, Antonio, 2024. "Platform Transaction Fees and Freemium Pricing," TSE Working Papers 24-1569, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    9. Etro, Federico, 2023. "Platform competition with free entry of sellers," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    10. Mark J. Tremblay, 2020. "The Limits of Marketplace Fee Discrimination," Working Papers 20-10, NET Institute.
    11. Shopova, Radostina, 2023. "Private labels in marketplaces," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    12. Belleflamme, Paul & Peitz, Martin, 2010. "Platform competition and seller investment incentives," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(8), pages 1059-1076, November.
    13. Castell, Carolin & Kiefer, Jasmin & Schubach, Sebastian & Schumann, Jan H. & Graf-Vlachy, Lorenz & König, Andreas, 2023. "Integrating digital platform dynamics into customer orientation research: A systematic review and research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    14. Lam, Wing Man Wynne & Liu, Xingyi, 2023. "Dancing with rivals: How does platform’s information usage benefit independent sellers?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 309(1), pages 421-431.
    15. Elizabeth J. Altman & Mary Tripsas, 2013. "Product to Platform Transitions: Organizational Identity Implications," Harvard Business School Working Papers 14-045, Harvard Business School, revised Sep 2014.
    16. Jullien, Bruno, 2010. "Two-Sided B2B Platforms," TSE Working Papers 11-223, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Mar 2011.
    17. Gokhan Guven & Eren Inci & Antonio Russo, 2017. "Apparent Competition in Two-Sided Platforms," CESifo Working Paper Series 6660, CESifo.
    18. Zhu Wang, 2018. "Why Do Platforms Use Ad Valorem Fees? Evaluating Two Alternative Explanations," Economic Quarterly, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, issue 4Q, pages 153-171.
    19. Eryn Juan He & Joel Goh, 2022. "Profit or Growth? Dynamic Order Allocation in a Hybrid Workforce," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(8), pages 5891-5906, August.
    20. Martin Peitz, 2023. "Governance and Regulation of Platforms," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2023_480, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    intermediation; platform tariff; hold-up problem;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D40 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - General
    • L14 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Transactional Relationships; Contracts and Reputation
    • L81 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Retail and Wholesale Trade; e-Commerce

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:rneart:v:21:y:2022:i:2:p:83-110:n:3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.