An analysis on price matching policy

ABSTRACT

Price matching policies have been widely adopted in retailing and other industrial markets. The flourishing online channels have made price comparison and matching much easier. Previous research on price matching policy focuses on how this policy impacts the competition among sellers based on simultaneous pricing games. However, besides the role to match the competitors' current price during a purchase (i.e. concurrent price matching), price matching policy usually has another role: to match a seller's own price or the competitors' price if the price drops within a specified period after the purchase (i.e. posterior price matching). This role has important implication for consumers' purchasing behavior. Rational consumers may delay purchasing, hoping for possible markdowns that come later. This delayed purchasing behavior, however, may harm a seller's profit. Posterior price matching allows a seller to induce early purchasing of buyers. This is because with a guarantee to match the lower price that may be offered by the seller later, a buyer cannot gain by waiting. On the other hand, posterior price matching reduces a seller's pricing power, and also changes a seller's pricing strategy over time, influencing a buyer's utility. Therefore whether or not posterior price matching benefits sellers or buyers deserve a close examination. In this paper, we present an analytical model that investigates the impact of posterior price matching on both the buyers' utility and the seller's revenue in three scenarios: (1) the seller is a monopolist in the market; (2) the seller is a semi-monopolist in the market, i.e., he is a monopolist in the first period, but the market is perfectly competitive and he has no pricing power in the second period; and (3) the seller is a price-taking seller, i.e., the market is perfectly competitive, in both periods. We find that in scenario 1 a price matching policy is beneficial for the seller but makes the buyers worse off. However, in scenario 2 and 3, we find that there exists a wide range of situations where a price matching policy surprisingly can benefit both parties.

References

1. S. Salop. Practices that (credibly) facilitate oligopoly coordination. In J. Stiglitz, F. Mathewson, eds. New Developments in the Analysis of Market Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986.
2. C. A. Holt and D. T. Scheffman. Facilitating practices: the effects of advance notice and best-price policies. Rand Journal of Economics, 18:187--197, 1987.
3. J. Simons. Fixing price with your victim: Efficiency and collusion with competitor-based formula pricing clauses. Hofstra Law Rev., 17: 599--640, 1989.
4. M. Sargent. Economics upside-down: Low price guarantees as mechanisms for facilitating tacit collusion. Univ. Pennsylvania Law Rev., 141:2055--2118, 1993.
5. A. Edlin. Do guaranteed-low-price policies guarantee high prices, and can antitrust rise to the challenge? Harvard Law Rev., 111:528--575, 1997.
6. I. P. Png and D. Hirshleifer. Price discrimination through offers to match price. Journal of Business, 60:365--383, 1987.
7. Financial Times. 1996. Petrol rivals on price-war footing. (January 18).
8. The Times. 1996. Tesco launches a new price-war. (September 5).
9. K. Corts. On the robustness of the argument that price-matching is anti-competitive. Economics Letters, 47:417--421, 1995.
10. K. Corts. On the competitive effects of price-matching policies. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 15:283--299, 1996.
11. Y. Chen, C. Narasimhan and Z. J. Zhang. Research note: consumer heterogeneity and competitive price-matching guarantees. Marketing Science, 20:300--314, 2001.
12. S. Moorthy and R. A. Winter. Price-matching guarantees. Working Paper, University of Toronto, 2004.
13. M. Arbatskaya. Buy now, search later: a model of low-price guarantees with post-purchase search. Working Paper, Emory University, 2005.
14. Z. Chen. How low is a guaranteed-lowest-price? Canadian Journal of Economics, 28:683--701, 1995.
15. K. Sivakumar and R. E. Weigand. Model of retail price match guarantees. Journal of Business Research, 39:241--255, 1997.
16. M. Hviid and G. Shaffer. Hassle costs: the Achilles' heel of price-matching guarantees. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 8:489--521, 1999.
17. R. Coase. Durability and monopoly. Journal of Law and Economics, 15:143--149, 1972.
18. J. Bulow. Durable-goods monopolist. Journal of Political Economy, 90:314-332, 1982.
19. N. Stokey Rational expectations and durable goods pricing. Bell Journal of Economics, 12:112--128, 1981.
20. M. Arbatskaya, M. Hviid and G. Shaffer. On the incidence and variety of low-price guarantees. Journal of Law and Economics, XLVII:307--332, 2004.
21. Q. Liu and G. van Ryzin. Strategic capacity rationing to induce early purchases. Working Paper, Columbia Univeristy, 2005.
22. X. Su Inter-temporal pricing with strategic customer behavior. Working Paper, Univeristy of California, Berkeley, 2005.
23. Y. Aviv and A. Pazgal. Optimal pricing of seasonal products in the presence of forward-looking consumers. Working Paper, Washington Univeristy, St. Louis, 2005.

Index Terms

• Computing methodologies

  • Modeling and simulation

    • Simulation theory

      • Systems theory

• Mathematics of computing

  • Information theory