This article examines how the consumer’s search cost and filtering on a retail platform affect the platform, the third-party sellers, and the consumers. The authors show that, given the platform’s percentage referral fee, a lower search cost can either increase or decrease the platform’s profit. By contrast, if the platform optimally adjusts its referral fee, a lower search cost will increase the platform’s profit. As the consumer’s search cost decreases, if the platform’s demand elasticity increases significantly, the platform should reduce its fee, potentially resulting in an all-win outcome for the platform, the sellers, and the consumers; otherwise, a lower search cost will increase the platform’s optimal fee percentage, potentially leading to higher equilibrium retail prices. Furthermore, the availability of filtering on the platform will in expectation induce consumers to search fewer products but buy products with higher match values, and filtering can either increase or decrease equilibrium retail prices. When filtering reveals only a small amount of the products’ match-value variations, it will benefit the platform, the sellers, and the consumers. This article shows that the effects of filtering and those of a decrease in search cost are qualitatively different.
AndersonEric T.FongNathan M.SimesterDuncan I.TuckerCatherine E. (2010), “How Sales Taxes Affect Customer and Firm Behavior: The Role of Search on the Internet,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (2), 229–39.
2.
AndersonSimonRenaultRegis (1999), “Pricing, Product Diversity, and Search Costs: A Bertrand-Chamberlin-Diamond Model,” RAND Journal of Economics, 30 (4), 719–35.
3.
ArmstrongMarkVickersJohnZhouJidong (2009), “Prominence and Consumer Search,” RAND Journal of Economics, 40 (2), 209–33.
4.
BaileyJoseph P. (1998), Intermediation and Electronic Markets: Aggregation and Pricing in Internet Commerce. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
5.
BajariPatrickHortaçsuAli (2003), “The Winner’s Curse, Reserve Prices, and Endogenous Entry: Empirical Insights from eBay Auctions,” RAND Journal of Economics, 34 (2), 329–55.
6.
BlakeThomasNoskoChrisTadelisSteven (2016), “Returns to Consumer Search: Evidence from eBay,” in Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 531–45.
BrancoFernandoSunMonicVillas-BoasJ.Miguel (2016), “Too Much Information? Information Gathering and Search Costs,” Marketing Science, 35 (4), 608–18.
9.
BronnenbergBart J.KimJun B.MelaCarl F. (2016), “Zooming In on Choice: How Do Consumers Search for Cameras Online?” Marketing Science, 35 (5), 693–712.
10.
BrownJeffrey R.GoolsbeeAustan (2002), “Does the Internet Make Markets More Competitive? Evidence from the Life Insurance Industry,” Journal of Political Economy, 110 (3), 481–507.
11.
BrynjolfssonErikSmithMichael D. (2000), “Frictionless Commerce? A Comparison of Internet and Conventional Retailers,” Management Science, 46 (4), 563–85.
12.
CachonGérard P.TerwieschChristianXuYi (2008), “On the Effects of Consumer Search and Firm Entry in a Multiproduct Competitive Market,” Marketing Science, 27 (3), 461–73.
13.
CavalloAlberto (2017), “Are Online and Offline Prices Similar? Evidence from Large Multi-Channel Retailers,” American Economic Review, 107 (1), 283–303.
14.
ChenYuxinYaoSong (2017), “Sequential Search with Refinement: Model and Application with Click-Stream Data,” Management Science, 63 (12), 4345–65.
15.
De Los SantosBabur I. (2008), “Consumer Search on the Internet,” working paper.
16.
De Los SantosBabur I.HortaçsuAliWildenbeestMatthijs R. (2012), “Testing Models of Consumer Search Using Data on Web Browsing and Purchasing Behavior,” The American Economic Review, 102 (1983), 2955–80.
17.
De Los SantosBabur I.HortaçsuAliWildenbeestMatthijs R. (2017), “Search with Learning for Differentiated Products: Evidence from E-Commerce,” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 35 (4), 626–41.
18.
DellaertBenedict G.C.HäublGerald (2012), “Searching in Choice Mode: Consumer Decision Processes in Product Search with Recommendations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (2), 277–88.
19.
DiamondPeter A. (1971), “A Model of Price Adjustment,” Journal of Economic Theory, 3 (2), 156–68.
20.
DukesAnthonyLiuLin (2016), “Online Shopping Intermediaries: The Strategic Design of Search Environments,” Management Science, 62 (4), 1064–77.
21.
EllisonGlennEllisonSara Fisher (2005), “Lessons About Markets from the Internet,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19 (2), 139–58.
22.
EllisonGlennEllisonSara Fisher (2009), “Search, Obfuscation, and Price Elasticities on the Internet,” Econometrica, 77 (2), 427–52.
23.
GhoseAnindyaIpeirotisPanagiotisLiBeibei (2018), “Modeling Consumer Footprints on Search Engines: An Interplay with Social Media,” Management Science, 35 (3), 1363–85.
24.
GuZheyin (Jane)LiuYunchuan (2013), “Consumer Fit Search, Retailer Shelf Layout, and Channel Interaction,” Marketing Science, 32 (4), 652–68.
SalopStevenStiglitzJoseph E. (1977), “Bargains and Ripoffs: A Model of Monopolistically Competitive Price Dispersion,” Review of Economic Studies, 44 (3), 493–510.
44.
SorensenAlan T. (2000), “Equilibrium Price Dispersion in Retail Markets for Prescription Drugs,” Journal of Political Economy, 108 (4), 833–50.
45.
StahlDale O. (1989), “Oligopolistic Pricing with Sequential Consumer Search,” American Economic Review, 79 (4), 700–12.
46.
StiglerGeorge (1961), “The Economics of Information,” Journal of Political Economy, 69 (3), 213–25.
47.
WolinskyAsher (1986), “True Monopolistic Competition as a Result of Imperfect Information,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 101 (3), 493–511.
48.
WrightJulianWangChengsi (2020), “Search Platforms: Showrooming and Price Parity Clauses,” RAND Journal of Economics, 51 (1), 32–58.
49.
YangHuanxing (2013), “Targeted Search and the Long Tail Effect,” RAND Journal of Economics, 44 (4), 733–56.
50.
ZhangShuoJiangZhenlingCheHai (2019), “Online Shopping with Endogenous PC and Mobile Channel Choice,” working paper.
51.
ZhongZemin (2020), “Targeted Search and Platform Design,” working paper.
52.
ZhouJidong (2014), “Multiproduct Search and the Joint Search Effect,” American Economic Review, 104 (9), 2918–39.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
