IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/chsofr/v158y2022ics0960077922002387.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A self-organized criticality participative pricing mechanism for selling zero-marginal cost products

Author

Listed:
  • Fraiman, Daniel

Abstract

In today's economy, selling a new zero-marginal cost product is a real challenge, as it is difficult to determine a product's “correct” sales price based on its profit and dissemination. As an example, think of the price of a new app or video game. New sales mechanisms for selling this type of product need to be designed, in particular ones that consider consumer preferences and reality. Here we introduce an auction model where buyers continuously place bids and the challenge is to decide whether or not to accept them. The model does not include a deadline for placing bids, and exhibits self-organized criticality; it presents a critical price from which a bid is accepted with probability one, and avalanches of sales above this value are observed. This model is especially interesting for startup companies interested in profit as well as making the product known on the market.

Suggested Citation

  • Fraiman, Daniel, 2022. "A self-organized criticality participative pricing mechanism for selling zero-marginal cost products," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:chsofr:v:158:y:2022:i:c:s0960077922002387
    DOI: 10.1016/j.chaos.2022.112028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960077922002387
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.chaos.2022.112028?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. Bak, Per & Chen, Kan & Scheinkman, Jose & Woodford, Michael, 1993. "Aggregate fluctuations from independent sectoral shocks: self-organized criticality in a model of production and inventory dynamics," Ricerche Economiche, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 3-30, March.
    2. Guillermo Gallego & Garrett van Ryzin, 1994. "Optimal Dynamic Pricing of Inventories with Stochastic Demand over Finite Horizons," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(8), pages 999-1020, August.
    3. Kannan, P.K. & Li, Hongshuang “Alice”, 2017. "Digital marketing: A framework, review and research agenda," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 22-45.
    4. Andergassen, Rainer & Nardini, Franco & Ricottilli, Massimo, 2006. "Innovation waves, self-organized criticality and technological convergence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 710-728, December.
    5. Chao, Yong & Fernandez, Jose & Nahata, Babu, 2015. "Pay-what-you-want pricing: Can it be profitable?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 176-185.
    6. Ju-Young Kim & Katharina Kaufmann & Manuel Stegemann, 2014. "The impact of buyer–seller relationships and reference prices on the effectiveness of the pay what you want pricing mechanism," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 409-423, December.
    7. Gianaurelio Cuniberti & Angelo Valleriani & Jos� Luis Vega, 2001. "Effects of regulation on a self-organized market," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(3), pages 332-335, March.
    8. Paul Klemperer, 2004. "Auctions: Theory and Practice," Online economics textbooks, SUNY-Oswego, Department of Economics, number auction1.
    9. Kristina Shampanier & Nina Mazar & Dan Ariely, 2007. "Zero as a Special Price: The True Value of Free Products," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 742-757, 11-12.
    10. Klaus M. Schmidt & Martin Spann & Robert Zeithammer, 2015. "Pay What You Want as a Marketing Strategy in Monopolistic and Competitive Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1217-1236, June.
    11. A. E. Biondo & A. Pluchino & A. Rapisarda, 2015. "Modelling Financial Markets by Self-Organized Criticality," Papers 1507.04298, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2015.
    12. Nicholas Ross, 2018. "Customer retention in freemium applications," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(4), pages 127-137, December.
    13. Sucharita Chandran & Vicki G. Morwitz, 2005. "Effects of Participative Pricing on Consumers' Cognitions and Actions: A Goal Theoretic Perspective," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 32(2), pages 249-259, September.
    14. Paul Klemperer, 2004. "Auctions: Theory and Practice," Online economics textbooks, SUNY-Oswego, Department of Economics, number auction1.
    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. Estrella Alonso & Joaquín Sánchez-Soriano & Juan Tejada, 2020. "Mixed Mechanisms for Auctioning Ranked Items," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-26, December.
    2. Li, Zhen & Kuo, Ching-Chung, 2011. "Revenue-maximizing Dutch auctions with discrete bid levels," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 215(3), pages 721-729, December.
    3. Shigeharu Okajima & Hiroko Okajima, 2016. "Impact of environmental regulation and the 2011 earthquake on the Japanese electricity industry," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 223-249, April.
    4. Ning Sun & Zaifu Yang, 2014. "An Efficient and Incentive Compatible Dynamic Auction for Multiple Complements," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 122(2), pages 422-466.
    5. Isa Hafalir & Onur Kesten & Katerina Sherstyuk & Cong Tao, 2023. "When Speed is of Essence: Perishable Goods Auctions," Working Papers 202310, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics.
    6. Onur A. Koska & Ilke Onur & Frank Stähler, 2018. "The scope of auctions in the presence of downstream interactions and information externalities," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 125(2), pages 107-136, October.
    7. Sweeting, Andrew & Bhattacharya, Vivek, 2015. "Selective entry and auction design," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 189-207.
    8. Li, Yunan, 2017. "Approximation in mechanism design with interdependent values," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 225-253.
    9. Sven-Olof Fridolfsson and Thomas P. Tangeras, 2015. "Nuclear Capacity Auctions," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3).
    10. Rey, Patrick & Salant, David, 2017. "Allocating essential inputs," TSE Working Papers 17-820, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Jun 2019.
    11. Anatolitis, Vasilios & Welisch, Marijke, 2017. "Putting renewable energy auctions into action – An agent-based model of onshore wind power auctions in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 394-402.
    12. Auriol, Emmanuelle & Søreide, Tina, 2017. "An economic analysis of debarment," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 36-49.
    13. Gonzalo Cisternas & Nicolás Figueroa, 2015. "Sequential procurement auctions and their effect on investment decisions," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(4), pages 824-843, October.
    14. Kaplan, Todd R. & Zamir, Shmuel, 2015. "Advances in Auctions," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    15. Jing Chen & Silvio Micali, 2016. "Leveraging Possibilistic Beliefs in Unrestricted Combinatorial Auctions," Games, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-19, October.
    16. Isa Hafalir & Donglai Luo & Cong Tao, 2024. "Istanbul Flower Auction: The Need for Speed," Papers 2404.08288, arXiv.org.
    17. Lorentziadis, Panos L., 2016. "Optimal bidding in auctions from a game theory perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(2), pages 347-371.
    18. Reisman, Richard & Payne, Adrian & Frow, Pennie, 2019. "Pricing in consumer digital markets: A dynamic framework," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 139-148.
    19. Scott Duke Kominers & Alexander Teytelboym & Vincent P Crawford, 2017. "An invitation to market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 541-571.
    20. Satoru Fujishige & Zaifu Yang, 2020. "A Universal Dynamic Auction for Unimodular Demand Types: An Efficient Auction Design for Various Kinds of Indivisible Commodities," Discussion Papers 20/08, Department of Economics, University of York.

    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:eee:chsofr:v:158:y:2022:i:c:s0960077922002387. 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: Thayer, Thomas R. (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/chaos-solitons-and-fractals .

    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.