IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/stabus/3860.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Uniform Pricing versus Third-Degree Price Discrimination

Author

Listed:
  • Bergemann, Dirk
  • Castro, Francisco
  • Weintraub, Gabriel

    (Stanford U)

Abstract

We compare the revenue of the optimal third-degree price discrimination policy against a uniform pricing policy. A uniform pricing policy offers the same price to all segments of the market. Our main result establishes that for a broad class of third-degree price discrimination problems with concave revenue functions and common support, a uniform price is guaranteed to achieve one-half of the optimal monopoly proï¬ ts. This revenue bound holds for any arbitrary number of segments and prices that the seller would use in case he would engage in third-degree price discrimination. We further establish that these conditions are tight and that a weakening of common support or concavity leads to arbitrarily poor revenue comparisons.

Suggested Citation

  • Bergemann, Dirk & Castro, Francisco & Weintraub, Gabriel, 2020. "Uniform Pricing versus Third-Degree Price Discrimination," Research Papers 3860, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
  • Handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:3860
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/gsb-cmis/gsb-cmis-download-auth/494331
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dirk Bergemann & Benjamin Brooks & Stephen Morris, 2015. "The Limits of Price Discrimination," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(3), pages 921-957, March.
    2. Schmalensee, Richard, 1981. "Output and Welfare Implications of Monopolistic Third-Degree Price Discrimination," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(1), pages 242-247, March.
    3. Bergemann, Dirk & Castro, Francisco & Weintraub, Gabriel Y., 2020. "The scope of sequential screening with ex post participation constraints," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    4. Iñaki Aguirre & Simon Cowan & John Vickers, 2010. "Monopoly Price Discrimination and Demand Curvature," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1601-1615, September.
    5. Malueg, David A. & Snyder, Christopher M., 2006. "Bounding the relative profitability of price discrimination," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 995-1011, September.
    6. Roger B. Myerson, 1981. "Optimal Auction Design," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 58-73, February.
    7. Daniel Krähmer & Roland Strausz, 2015. "Optimal Sales Contracts with Withdrawal Rights," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 82(2), pages 762-790.
    8. Mark Armstrong, 1999. "Price Discrimination by a Many-Product Firm," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 66(1), pages 151-168.
    9. Dhangwatnotai, Peerapong & Roughgarden, Tim & Yan, Qiqi, 2015. "Revenue maximization with a single sample," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 318-333.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Guillermo Gallego & Gerardo Berbeglia, 2021. "Bounds and Heuristics for Multi-Product Personalized Pricing," Papers 2102.03038, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2021.

    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. Bergemann, Dirk & Castro, Francisco & Weintraub, Gabriel, 2022. "Third-degree price discrimination versus uniform pricing," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 275-291.
    2. Miravete, Eugenio & Seim, Katja & Thurk, Jeff, 2013. "Complexity, Efficiency, and Fairness of Multi-Product Monopoly Pricing," CEPR Discussion Papers 9641, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Dirk Bergemann & Benjamin Brooks & Stephen Morris, 2015. "The Limits of Price Discrimination," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(3), pages 921-957, March.
    4. Rhodes, Andrew & Zhou, Jidong, 2022. "Personalized Pricing and Competition," MPRA Paper 112988, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Bergemann, Dirk & Strack, Philipp, 2022. "Progressive participation," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 17(3), July.
    6. Tremblay, Mark J., 2019. "Pareto price discrimination," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Jeff Thurk, 2015. "Measuring the Unequal Implications of One Size Fits All Regulation," 2015 Meeting Papers 1251, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    8. Elias Deutscher, 2022. "Brand bidding restraints revisited – What is the appropriate economic and legal framework for the antitrust analysis of vertical online search advertising restraints?," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2021-09, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    9. Lu, Jingfeng & Wang, Zijia, 2021. "Optimal selling mechanisms with buyer price search," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    10. Simon Cowan, 2016. "Welfare-increasing third-degree price discrimination," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 47(2), pages 326-340, May.
    11. Heumann, Tibor, 2020. "Information design and sequential screening with ex post participation constraint," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 15(1), January.
    12. von Wangenheim, Jonas, 2017. "Consumer-Optimal Information Design," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 53, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    13. Stefano Galavotti, 2014. "Reducing Inefficiency in Public Good Provision Through Linking," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 16(3), pages 427-466, June.
    14. Bergemann, Dirk & Castro, Francisco & Weintraub, Gabriel Y., 2020. "The scope of sequential screening with ex post participation constraints," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    15. Andreas Leibbrandt, 2016. "Behavioral Constraints on Pricing: Experimental Evidence on Price Discrimination and Customer Antagonism," CESifo Working Paper Series 6214, CESifo.
    16. Fang,H. & Norman,P., 2003. "An efficiency rationale for bundling of public goods," Working papers 19, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
    17. Mahsa Derakhshan & Negin Golrezaei & Renato Paes Leme, 2022. "Linear Program-Based Approximation for Personalized Reserve Prices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(3), pages 1849-1864, March.
    18. Stole, Lars A., 2007. "Price Discrimination and Competition," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: Mark Armstrong & Robert Porter (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 34, pages 2221-2299, Elsevier.
    19. Morten Hviid & Greg Shaffer, 2012. "Optimal low-price guarantees with anchoring," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 393-417, December.
    20. Takanori Adachi & Noriaki Matsushima, 2014. "The Welfare Effects Of Third-Degree Price Discrimination In A Differentiated Oligopoly," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 52(3), pages 1231-1244, July.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ecl:stabus:3860. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gsstaus.html .

    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.