[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v20y2001i3p300-314.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Heterogeneity and Competitive Price-Matching Guarantees

Author

Listed:
  • Yuxin Chen

    (Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, 3022 Broadway, New York, New York 10027)

  • Chakravarthi Narasimhan

    (Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, 3022 Broadway, New York, New York 10027)

  • Z. John Zhang

    (Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, 3022 Broadway, New York, New York 10027)

Abstract
Price-matching guarantees are widely used in consumer and industrial markets. Previous studies argue that they are a marketing tactic that facilitates implicit price collusion. This is because once a store adopts this marketing tactic, its rivals can no longer steal its customers by undercutting its price, and hence they have little incentive to initiate price cuts. While a store with price-matching guarantees has no fear of losing customers to rivals' price cuts, it has every incentive to raise its own price to charge a higher price to its loyal consumers. A growing body of legal literature uses this argument today to justify calls for antitrust actions against stores employing this marketing tactic. However, this theoretical conclusion baffles practitioners and industry experts. In practice, sellers typically embrace this marketing tactic in response to heavier competition and a growing bargain consciousness among shoppers. The introduction of price-matching guarantees by a store is frequently interpreted by industry observers as the initiation of a price war rather than a signal of price collusion. This assertion is supported in many instances by the fact that stores that introduce price-matching guarantees also roll back their prices and typically suffer subsequent loss of profits. Most ironically, the favorite examples used by researchers to illustrate how price-matching guarantees can enforce price collusion, Crazy Eddie and “Nobody Beats the Wiz,” have subsequently either gone bankrupt or filed for federal bankruptcy protection. In this study we show that price-matching guarantees can indeed facilitate competition: The expected prices and profits can be strictly lower when all stores adopt price-matching guarantees than when they are not allowed to. This is because the adoption of price-matching guarantees generates not only a competition-dampening effect, which has been recognized in the literature, but also a competition-enhancing effect. This latter effect comes from the fact that price-matching guarantees encourage price search by those consumers who prefer to shop at a particular store but are mindful of saving opportunities. These consumers will have incentives to obtain the rival store's price when their favorite store offers price-matching guarantees to avail themselves of the lowest possible price at their favorite store. As a result, price-matching guarantees reduce the number of purchases at the store from those consumers who would have paid the full price and thus prompt a store to price more aggressively to bid for more incremental sales. This competition-enhancing effect can more than offset the competition-dampening effect in markets where consumers differ in their price search costs and store loyalty. Thus, our study casts doubt on the advisability of blanket prohibition on price-matching guarantees. Our argument relies only on consumer segmentation and on the phenomenon of periodic sales, both of which are common in retail markets. We arrive at our conclusion by incorporating and into the standard sales-promotion models. In contrast, the past literature on price-matching guarantees ignores the ubiquitous phenomenon of sales in retail markets and overlooks those consumers who prefer to shop at a particular store, but are alert to saving opportunities. As a result, it is troubled by two awkward conclusions. On the one hand, price-matching guarantees simply remove rivals' incentives to undercut in price and, hence, also their incentives to run sales. This implies that the adoption of price-matching guarantees in a market will eliminate the phenomenon of sales, which is obviously counterfactual. On the other hand, in equilibrium no consumer actually invokes price-matching guarantees, as each player has incentives to close any price gap in the market. This is obviously false, based on our casual observations and our conversations with store managers. Theoretical research on the subject thus far has been overwhelmingly one-sided, and empirical or experimental studies are conspicuously lacking. We hope that our conclusion will spark further research in both directions. A healthy debate will broaden our perspective on an issue of great importance in formulating public policies and in managerial decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuxin Chen & Chakravarthi Narasimhan & Z. John Zhang, 2001. "Consumer Heterogeneity and Competitive Price-Matching Guarantees," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 300-314, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:20:y:2001:i:3:p:300-314
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.20.3.300.9766
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.20.3.300.9766
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.20.3.300.9766?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scott A. Neslin, 1990. "A Market Response Model for Coupon Promotions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 125-145.
    2. Duncan Simester, 1997. "Note. Optimal Promotion Strategies: A Demand-Sided Characterization," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(2), pages 251-256, February.
    3. Varian, Hal R, 1980. "A Model of Sales," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(4), pages 651-659, September.
    4. Brian T. Ratchford, 1982. "Cost-Benefit Models for Explaining Consumer Choice and Information Seeking Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 197-212, February.
    5. repec:bla:jemstr:v:4:y:1995:i:1:p:85-107:a is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Narasimhan, Chakravarthi, 1988. "Competitive Promotional Strategies," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 61(4), pages 427-449, October.
    7. Morten Hviid & Greg Shaffer, 1999. "Hassle Costs: The Achilles' Heel of Price‐Matching Guarantees," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(4), pages 489-521, December.
    8. Belton, Terrence M., 1987. "A model of duopoly and meeting or beating competition," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 399-417.
    9. Png, I P L & Hirshleifer, D, 1987. "Price Discrimination through Offers to Match Price," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60(3), pages 365-383, July.
    10. Villas-Boas, J Miguel, 1995. "Models of Competitive Price Promotions: Some Empirical Evidence from the Coffee and Saltine Crackers Markets," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(1), pages 85-107, Spring.
    11. Doyle, Christopher, 1988. "Different selling strategies in Bertrand oligopoly," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 387-390.
    12. Stigler, George J & Becker, Gary S, 1977. "De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(2), pages 76-90, March.
    13. Joseph E. Stiglitz & G. Frank Mathewson (ed.), 1986. "New Developments in the Analysis of Market Structure," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262690934, April.
    14. Corts, Kenneth S., 1995. "On the robustness of the argument that price-matching is anti-competitive," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 47(3-4), pages 417-421, March.
    15. Chakravarthi Narasimhan, 1984. "A Price Discrimination Theory of Coupons," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 128-147.
    16. Zhang, Z John, 1995. "Price-Matching Policy and the Principle of Minimum Differentiation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(3), pages 287-299, September.
    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. Samir Mamadehussene, 2021. "Measuring the competition effects of price-matching guarantees," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 261-287, December.
    2. Trost, Michael, 2021. "The collusive efficacy of competition clauses in Bertrand Markets with capacity-constrained retailers," Hohenheim Discussion Papers in Business, Economics and Social Sciences 04-2021, University of Hohenheim, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences.
    3. Arcan Nalca & Tamer Boyaci & Saibal Ray, 2010. "Competitive price-matching guarantees under imperfect store availability," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 275-300, September.
    4. Mago, Shakun Datta & Pate, Jennifer G., 2009. "An experimental examination of competitor-based price matching guarantees," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 342-360, May.
    5. Pio Baake & Ulrich Schwalbe, 2013. "Price Guarantees, Consumer Search, and Hassle Costs," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1335, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    6. Trost, Michael, 2022. "Unraveling the spreading pattern of collusively effective competition clauses," Hohenheim Discussion Papers in Business, Economics and Social Sciences 01-2022, University of Hohenheim, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences.
    7. Yuan, Hong & Krishna, Aradhna, 2011. "Price-Matching Guarantees with Endogenous Search: A Market Experiment Approach," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 182-193.
    8. Tumennasan, Norovsambuu, 2013. "Quantity precommitment and price-matching," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(5), pages 375-388.
    9. Aleksandr Yankelevich & Brady Vaughan, 2016. "Price‐Match Announcements in a Consumer Search Duopoly," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(4), pages 1186-1211, April.
    10. Corts, Kenneth S., 1997. "On the competitive effects of price-matching policies," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 283-299, May.
    11. Pinar Akman & Morten Hviid, 2005. "A Most-Favoured-Customer Guarantee with a Twist," Working Papers 05-8, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia.
    12. Morten Hviid & Greg Shaffer, 2010. "Matching Own Prices, Rivals' Prices Or Both?," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 479-506, September.
    13. Subhasish Dugar, 2007. "Price-Matching Guarantees and Equilibrium Selection in a Homogenous Product Market: An Experimental Study," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 30(2), pages 107-119, March.
    14. Arcan Nalca & Tamer Boyaci & Saibal Ray, 2013. "Competitive Price-Matching Guarantees: Equilibrium Analysis of the Availability Verification Clause Under Demand Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(4), pages 971-986, April.
    15. Juan A. Mañez, 2006. "Unbeatable Value Low‐Price Guarantee: Collusive Mechanism or Advertising Strategy?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(1), pages 143-166, March.
    16. Anne T. Coughlan & Greg Shaffer, 2009. "—Price-Matching Guarantees, Retail Competition, and Product-Line Assortment," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 580-588, 05-06.
    17. Juncai Jiang & Nanda Kumar & Brian T. Ratchford, 2017. "Price-Matching Guarantees with Endogenous Consumer Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(10), pages 3489-3513, October.
    18. Arbatskaya, Maria & Hviid, Morten & Shaffer, Greg, 2006. "On the use of low-price guarantees to discourage price cutting," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 1139-1156, November.
    19. Klapper, Daniel & Cooper, Lee G. & Hildebrandt, Lutz, 1999. "The congruence of theoretical and empirical patterns of inter-store price competition," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1999,44, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    20. Morten Hviid & Greg Shaffer, 2012. "Optimal low-price guarantees with anchoring," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 393-417, December.

    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:inm:ormksc:v:20:y:2001:i:3:p:300-314. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.