Business Economics (A)Researcher training course 7-8th week

Yuji Honjo

Faculty of Commerce

Chuo University

2

Contents Theme

The Dynamics of Pricing Rivalry Keyword

Static vs. Dynamic, Cooperative pricing, Tit-for-Tat Pricing, Fork Theorem

Discussions Explain the case when cooperative pricing occurs. What factors affect cooperative pricing?

3

Case: Australian Newspaper Fairfax vs. News Limited

Fairfax Morning Herald (Morning)

<= more affluent readership Sun (Evening)

News Limited (Rupert Murdoch) Daily Telegraph (Morning) Daily Miller (Evening)

4

(Continued) Evening newspaper (market)

Sun <= price leader Price competition: 1941-1974

The price increase was announced by the Sun, was matched within days by the Daily Mirror.

Price competition: 1975 Sun: 10 cents => 12 cents Daily Mirror: 10 cents => keep the price

Price competition: 1979 Sun: 12 cents => 10 cents

5

Dynamic Pricing Rivalry Why the Cournot and Bertrand Models Are

Not Dynamic These two models => Not dynamic but static

(Figure 8.1)

6

Dynamic Pricing Rivalry Dynamic Pricing Rivalry: Intention

(Figure 8.2.)

Monopoly outcome => profits: $16 million => Each profits: $8 million

Bertrand outcome => Each profits: $0

=> The monopoly outcome is better for each firm.

7

Cooperative Pricing Cooperative Pricing

Cf. Price collusion => felony Situations in which firms can sustain prices in

excess of those that would arise in a non-cooperative single-shot price or quantity-setting game

=> Is cooperative pricing achievable when firms make pricing decisions non-cooperatively?

8

(Continued) Which

If the firm lowers the price

=>Short-term increase in profits

=>The firm’s rival might respond by lowering the price.

See Chamberlin (1922).

9

Competitor Responses and Tit-for-Tat Pricing e.g. Shell vs. Exxon Mobil

Bertrand price => $20 Monopoly price => $60

Shell: $20 => $60 Exxon Mobil: $20 => $40

Exxon Mobil’s profits: $12 million=> The profits exceeds $8 million (monopoly level).

10

(Continued) Shell’s Strategies

1. Raise its price to $60.

2. If Exxon Mobil sticks with the low price ($40), Shell drops its price to $40.

3. If Exxon Mobil follows Shell, both the firms earn higher profits.

11

(Continued) Exxon Mobil’s Strategies

(1) Sticks with the current price of $40,

or (2) follow Shell and raise its price to $60.

(1) Price $40 $40 $40 $40 $40

Profits (Total: $57.93 million)

(2) Price $60 $60 $60 $60 $60

Profits (Total: $77.05 million)

12

(Continued) Exxon Mobil’s profits

(1) Profits < (2) Profits

=> Exxon Mobil gain more profit by matching Shell’s price.

Tit-for-tat strategy

e.g. Fairfax & Sons vs. Daily Mirror

=> × Tit-for-tat strategy

13

Tit-for-Tat Pricing with Many Firms Extension of the Shell-Exxon Mobil example

πM: Industry’s profit when all firms charge the monopoly price.

π0: Profit at the prevailing price (< πM)

(1) π0 + π0/Ni

(2) πM/N + πM/Ni

Cooperative outcome

(1) < (2) => We obtain Equation (8.1).

14

Fork Theorem Cooperative Outcome

If the discount rate i is not too large, then the cooperative outcome will be sustainable.

=>Fork theorem Coordinating on an Equilibrium

Achieving a particular equilibrium in a game with many equilibrium, some potentially are more attractive than others. => Coordination problem

15

Why Is Tit-for-Tat So Compelling? Is Tit-for-Tat the only strategy?

=> No Grim Trigger Strategy

If any firm deviates from the cooperating price, the others will drop its price to marginal cost in the next period and keep it there forever.

Tit-for-Tat Strategy Niceness, provocability, and forgiveness

16

Misreads Misread

A firm mistakenly believes a competitor is charging one price when it is really charging another

A firm misunderstands the reasons for a competitor’s pricing decision

Dixit and Nalebuff’s (1991) argument When misreads are possible, pricing strategies that are les

s provocable and more forgiving than tit-for-tat are desirable.

17

How Market Structure Affects the Sustainability of Cooperative Pricing

Cooperative Pricing Market concentration Structural conditions that affect reaction speeds

and detection lags Asymmetries among firms Price sensitivity of buyers

18

Market Concentration and the Sustainability of Cooperative Pricing

Market Concentration The benefit-cost ratio in equation (8.1) goes up as

the number of firms goes down. The more concentrated the market, the larger the

benefits from cooperation. Coordinating on a particular focal strategy is

likely to be easier for less firms there are compete against one another in the market.

19

Reaction Speed, Detection Lags, and the Sustainability of Cooperative Pricing

Reaction Speed If price cuts can be matched instantly, cooperative pricing

will always be sustainable. A firm may be unable to react quickly to its

competitors’ pricing moves because of Lags in detecting competitors’ price Infrequently interactions with competitors Ambiguous in identifying which firm among a group of

firms in a market is cutting price Difficulties distinguishing drops in volume due to price

cutting by rivals from drops in volume due to unanticipated decreases in market demand

20

(Continued) Important factors

Lumpiness of orders Information about sales transactions The number of buyers Volatility of demand and cost conditions

21

Asymmetries among Firms and the Sustainability of Cooperative Pricing

Asymmetries among Firms Firms are not identical=> Firms have different costs.=> No single focal price=> Cooperative pricing – difficult

Two related reasons for the difficulty Large firms benefit more from the move toward

cooperative pricing than does small firms. Small firms anticipate that large firms have weak

incentives to punish a small firm that undercuts its price.

22

Case: Dot Matrix Printer in South Africa Epson vs. Panasonic

Epson – Leader firm Panasonic: 5% discount => Capture a fraction α

of demand By allowing Panasonic to sell printers at a lower

price than it charges, Epson would be extending a price umbrella.

23

Market Structure and the Sustainability of Cooperative Pricing

(See Table 8.1.)

24

Facilitating Practices Firms themselves can facilitate cooperative

pricing by Price leadership Advance announcement of price charges Most favored customer clauses Uniform delivered pricing