This research investigates how platform-suggested prices influence sellers’ pricing decisions and selling outcomes. In collaboration with Mercari, a peer-to-peer e-commerce platform, the authors conduct a field experiment that varies whether a seller receives a suggested price—and, if so, the suggested price itself. They find that a 30% change in suggested prices leads to a 5% change in listing prices in the same direction. Suggested prices are more influential when pricing is more challenging, such as for new sellers and used items. Lower suggested prices improve both the likelihood of sale and the resulting seller revenue. A subsequent experiment shows that these results are likely to generalize to the full equilibrium. The findings imply that platform-suggested pricing is an effective compromise that guides seller pricing while allowing sellers to incorporate their private information.
AparicioDiegoSimesterDuncan (2022), “Price Frictions and the Success of New Products,” Marketing Science, 41 (6), 1057–73.
2.
BackusMatthewBlakeThomasTadelisSteven (2019), “On the Empirical Content of Cheap-Talk Signaling: An Application to Bargaining,” Journal of Political Economy, 127 (4), 1599–1628.
3.
BairdSarahBohrenJ. AislinnMcIntoshCraigÖzlerBerk (2018), “Optimal Design of Experiments in the Presence of Interference,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 100 (5), 844–60.
4.
BanerjeeAbhijitChattopadhyayRaghabendraDufloEstherKenistonDanielSinghNina (2021), “Improving Police Performance in Rajasthan, India: Experimental Evidence on Incentives, Managerial Autonomy, and Training,” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 13 (1), 36–66.
5.
BlakeThomasCoeyDominic (2014), “Why Marketplace Experimentation Is Harder Than It Seems: The Role of Test-control Interference,” in Proceedings of the Fifteenth ACM conference on Economics and Computation, 567–82.
6.
BurkeMarshallBergquistLauren FalcaoMiguelEdward (2019), “Sell Low and Buy High: Arbitrage and Local Price Effects in Kenyan Markets,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134 (2), 785–842.
7.
CaiChenchengPouget-AbadieJeanAiroldiEdoardo M. (2022), “Optimizing Randomized and Deterministic Saturation Designs Under Interference,” arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.09682.
DehaeneStanislasMehlerJacques (1992), “Cross-Linguistic Regularities in the Frequency of Number Words,” Cognition, 43 (1), 1–29.
10.
DietvorstBerkeley J.SimmonsJoseph P.MasseyCade (2015), “Algorithm Aversion: People Erroneously Avoid Algorithms After Seeing Them Err,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144 (1), 114–26.
11.
EggerDennisHaushoferJohannesMiguelEdwardNiehausPaulWalkerMichael (2022), “General Equilibrium Effects of Cash Transfers: Experimental Evidence from Kenya,” Econometrica, 90 (6), 2603–43.
12.
FarronatoChiaraFradkinAndreyLarsenBradleyBrynjolfssonErik (2024), “Consumer Protection in an Online World: An Analysis of Occupational Licensing,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 16 (3), 549–79.
13.
FilippasApostolosJagabathulaSrikanthSundararajanArun (2023), “The Limits of Centralized Pricing in Online Marketplaces and the Value of User Control,” Management Science, 69 (12), 7202–16.
14.
FilmerDeonFriedmanJedKandpalEeshaniOnishiJunko (2023), “Cash Transfers, Food Prices, and Nutrition Impacts on Ineligible Children,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 105 (2), 327–43.
15.
FongJessica (2024), “Effects of Market Size and Competition in Two-Sided Markets: Evidence from Online Dating,” Marketing Science, 43 (5), 971–85.
16.
ForoughifarMohsenMehtaNitin (2023), “The Challenges of Deploying an Algorithmic Pricing Tool: Evidence from Airbnb,” working paper, University of Toronto.
17.
FradkinAndreyBholeMonicaHortonJohn (2026), “Competition Avoidance vs Herding in Job Search: Evidence from Large-Scale Field Experiments on an Online Job Board,” Management Science,72 (2), 1305–23.
GinéXavierMansuriGhazala (2018), “Together We Will: Experimental Evidence on Female Voting Behavior in Pakistan,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 10 (1), 207–35.
20.
GoliAliLambrechtAnjaYoganarasimhanHema (2023), “A Bias Correction Approach for Interference in Ranking Experiments,” Marketing Science, 43 (3), 590–614.
21.
GuWeiLuoJingYuXiaoruZhangWenqingLiBaixun (2023), “Dynamic Decisions Between Sellers and Consumers in Online Second-Hand Trading Platforms: Evidence from C2C Transactions,” Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 177, 103257.
HoltzDavidLobelFelipeLobelRubenLiskovichInessaAralSinan (2025), “Reducing Interference Bias in Online Marketplace Experiments Using Cluster Randomization: Evidence from a Pricing Meta-Experiment on Airbnb,” Management Science, 71 (1), 390–406.
HuangYufengEllicksonPaul B.LovettMitchell J. (2022), “Learning to Set Prices,” Journal of Marketing Research, 59 (2), 411–34.
26.
HudgensMichael G.HalloranM. Elizabeth (2008), “Toward Causal Inference with Interference,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103 (482), 832–42.
27.
HuiXiangSaeediMaryamSpagnoloGiancarloTadelisSteven (2023), “Raising the Bar: Certification Thresholds and Market Outcomes,” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 15 (2), 599–626.
28.
ImbensGuido W.RubinDonald B. (2015), Causal Inference in Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences. Cambridge University Press.
29.
JohariRameshLiHannahLiskovichInessaWeintraubGabriel Y. (2022), “Experimental Design in Two-Sided Platforms: An Analysis of Bias,” Management Science, 68 (10), 7069–89.
30.
JussupowEkaterinaBenbasatIzakHeinzlArmin (2020), “Why Are We Averse Towards Algorithms? A Comprehensive Literature Review on Algorithm Aversion,” in Proceedings of the 28th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), An Online AIS Conference, https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2020_rp/168.
31.
LeungMichael P. (2020), “Treatment and Spillover Effects Under Network Interference,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 102 (2), 368–80.
32.
LiHannahZhaoGengJohariRameshWeintraubGabriel Y. (2022), “Interference, Bias, and Variance in Two-Sided Marketplace Experimentation: Guidance for Platforms,” in Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022, 182–92.
33.
LiuLanHudgensMichael G. (2014), “Large Sample Randomization Inference of Causal Effects in the Presence of Interference,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 109 (505), 288–301.
34.
MasonMalia F.LeeAlice J.WileyElizabeth A.AmesDaniel R. (2013), “Precise Offers Are Potent Anchors: Conciliatory Counteroffers and Attributions of Knowledge in Negotiations,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49 (4), 759–63.
MisraKanishkaSchwartzEric M.AbernethyJacob (2019), “Dynamic Online Pricing with Incomplete Information Using Multiarmed Bandit Experiments,” Marketing Science, 38 (2), 226–52.
37.
NakamuraShotaroHasanainSyed AliTariqAdeel (2024), “Spillovers and Adjustments Under Information and Search Frictions in a Developing Online Marketplace,” SSRN, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4971204.
SinclairBetsyMcConnellMargaretGreenDonald P. (2012), “Detecting Spillover Effects: Design and Analysis of Multilevel Experiments,” American Journal of Political Science, 56 (4), 1055–69.
SmithAndrew R.WindschitlPaul D. (2015), “Resisting Anchoring Effects: The Roles of Metric and Mapping Knowledge,” Memory & Cognition, 43, 1071–84.
43.
SmithAndrew R.WindschitlPaul D.BruchmannKathryn (2013), “Knowledge Matters: Anchoring Effects are Moderated by Knowledge Level,” European Journal of Social Psychology, 43 (1), 97–108.
TchetgenEric J. TchetgenVander WeeleTyler J. (2012), “On Causal Inference in the Presence of Interference,” Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 21 (1), 55–75.
46.
TurnerBrandon M.SchleyDan R. (2016), “The Anchor Integration Model: A Descriptive Model of Anchoring Effects,” Cognitive Psychology, 90, 1–47.
47.
TverskyAmosKahnemanDaniel (1974), “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Biases in Judgments Reveal Some Heuristics of Thinking Under Uncertainty,” Science, 185 (4157), 1124–31.
48.
UrsuRaluca M. (2018), “The Power of Rankings: Quantifying the Effect of Rankings on Online Consumer Search and Purchase Decisions,” Marketing Science, 37 (4), 530–52.
WilliamsKevin R. (2022), “The Welfare Effects of Dynamic Pricing: Evidence from Airline Markets,” Econometrica, 90 (2), 831–58.
51.
WuRuiqiHuangYufengLiNan (2025), “Platform Information Design and Competitive Price Targeting,” SSRN, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4619584.
52.
ZhanRuohanHanShichaoHuYuchenJiangZhenling (2024), “Estimating Treatment Effects Under Recommender Interference: A Structured Neural Networks Approach,” arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.14380.
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.
