2018년 3월 24일 토요일

발췌: M. Rysman// The Economics of Two-Sided Markets (2009)


출처: Rysman, Marc. 2009. "The Economics of Two-Sided Markets." Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23 (3): 125-43.



※ 발췌 (excerpt):


ABSTRACT:

Broadly speaking, a two-sided market is one in which 1) two sets of agents interact through an intermediary or platform, and 2) the decisions of each set of agents affects the outcomes of the other set of agents, typically through an externality. In the case of a video game system, for instance Playstation, the intermediary is the console producer--Sony--while the two sets of agents are consumers and video game developers. Neither consumers nor game developers will be interested in the Playstation if the other party is not. Similarly, a successful payment card requires both consumer usage and merchant acceptance, where both consumers and merchants value each others' participation.

Many more products fit into this paradigm, such as search engines, newspapers, and almost any advertiser-supported media (examples in which consumers typcally negatively value, rather than positively value, the participation of the other side), as well as most software or title-based operating systems and consumer electronics.

This paper seeks to explain what two-sided markets are and why they interest economists. I discuss strategies that firms typically consider, and I highlighted a number of puzzing outcomes fromthe perspective of the economics of two-sided markets. ( ... ... )


( ... ... ) Malls which seek retailers and consumers, convention organizers which seek buyers and sellers, dating services which seek men and women, and ^The Journal of Economic Perspectives^ which seeks content and readership, all experience the economics of two-sided markets. The multi-sided nature of many Internet and high-technology markets, as well as new payment systems and media outlets, suggest that two-sided and multi-sided markets are becoming increasingly important.

( ... ... )


What Defines a Two-Sided Market?

( ... ... )

Of course, one-sided markets have intermediaries, too. For example, consider a farmer that sells a product to a grocery store once and does not otherwise interact with the grocer. The grocer then picks a retail price based on inventory and demand. In this one-sided market, the farmer collects the wholesale price and is then indifferent to the success of the grocer in actually selling the good. The distinguishing feature in this case is whether the seller is paid based on the success of the platform with the buying side.[주]1  Strikingly, one-sided and two-sided selling strategies exist side-by-side at Amazon.com. For some products, like certain new books, Amazon (basically) buys at a wholesale price and sells for a retail price, which is a one-sided model. But for many other products, Amazon provides a web portal for a producer that sets the retail price that a consumer would see. As this distinction often depends on the decisions of the intermediary rather than on purely technological features of the market, it may be better to use the term "two-sided strategies" rather than "two-sided markets." Regardless, hwo Amazon makes this choice about whether to be one-sided or two-sided is an important question for this literature.

This definition of a two-sided market may seem very broad, or overly inclusive. That is not a problem in my view. The interesting question is often not whether a market can be defined as two-sided--virtually all markets might be two-sided to some extent--but how important two-sided issues are in determining outcomes of interest. For instance, if an auto manufacturer sells many products in a single neighborhood, local mechanics may develop expertise in that type of car, which encourages further sales by the manufacturer in the future. Hence, the market for autos could be viewed as two-sided because manufactureres must attract both consumers and mechanic expertise. At present, even if such a network effect exists, it seems of little importance either in the minds of market participants or in determining market outcomes. That is, although two-sidedness may exist in practically all markets, it is not always quantitatively important. ( ... ... )

The emphasis on market intermediaries is the main distinction between the literature on two-sided markets and the literature on network effects, and on indirect network effects in particular. The definitions are similar: a good exhibits an indirect network effect if demand for the good depends on the provision of a complementary good, which in turn depends on demand for the original good (for ex., Church and Grandal, 1992; Chou and Shy, 1990). Indeed, in a technical sense, the literature on two-sided markets could be seen as a subset of the literature on network effects.[주]2  However, papers on two-sided markets tend to focus on the actions of the market intermediary, particularly pricing choices, whereas papes on network effects typically focus on adoption by users and optimal network size. ( ... ... )

댓글 쓰기