Talk:Two-sided market

Why is there no article on One-sided market? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.251 (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article describes one-sided markets as those markets that have homogeneous network effects such that the user types are not distinct from one another. A classic citation would be Katz and Shapiro’s 1985 American Economic Review article. One sided logic helps to explain markets such as telephony and fax, but does not explain the permanent subsidies seen in markets such as television (advertising supported), web search (also advertising supported) OR software such as Adobe Acrobat reader (supported by sales of Acrobat/Distiller).Ggparker (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A one-sided market is really a normal market where buyer meets seller without any other party or when the interaction is on the commons. A two-sided market is really a three-party market of buyer, seller, and facilitator. SageGreenRider (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FreePC example looks wrong

"FreePC lost $80 in 1999 when it decided ..". Is that supposed to be $80 million or some such? Robbiemorrison (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes, @Robbiemorrison. I read the cite and corrected it. SageGreenRider (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ruffle's comment on this article

Dr. Ruffle has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

1. "The concept of network effects were conceived independently by Geoffrey Parker and Van Alstyne (2000,2000, 2005) to explain behavior in software markets and by Rochet & Tirole[7] to explain behavior in credit card markets. The first known peer-reviewed paper on interdependent demands was published in 2000."
Replace with: "The concept of network effects dates back to Katz and Shapiro (1985) who distinguished between direct network effects -- a consumer benefits directly from others buying the network good, as is the case for communications technologies -- and indirect network effects -- a consumer derives positive utility from others buying the network good because the amount and variety of complementary goods increases."
2. "In case of fighting companies will take stranding risk in the short term but in the long term companies can price according to monopoly theories. Consequently, winner-take all can be threatened by government intervention."
Delete above paragraph or replace with:
"In case of fighting, companies incur short-term risk in the hope that they emerge the winner, thereby enabling them to price as a monopolist."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Ruffle has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

Reference : Bradley J. Ruffle & Oscar Volij, 2012. "First-Mover Advantage In Two-Sided Competitions: An Experimental Comparison Of Role-Assignment Rules," Working Papers 1208, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Chakravorti's comment on this article

Dr. Chakravorti has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

Generally, the piece is well written with many examples. Perhaps, a section on the regulation of these industries would be interesting to include. I would like to see more on demand elasticities.
Marc Rysman's article titled, "The Economics of Two-Sided Markets," in Journal of Economic Perspectives should be included.
A recent paper written by Carbo, Chakravorti, and Rodriguez in the Journal of Economics and Statistics empirical tests for two sided markets in the payment card market would be a good addition to the discussion.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Chakravorti has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

Reference : Wilko Bolt & Sujit Chakravorti, 2008. "Consumer Choice and Merchant Acceptance of Payment Media," DNB Working Papers 197, Netherlands Central Bank, Research Department.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Valletti's comment on this article

Dr. Valletti has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

The quality of this article is average. There are discrepancies between the initial definition (that mentions only network benefits) and the overview immediately after (where it is correctly said that externalities can be either positive or negative). It lacks a section of efficient pricing, and possibly a different section on monopoly pricing - instead it goes immediately to competition in two-sided markets. In the pricing section, it is said that the more price sensitive side gets a lower price: but this would be true in any market. What the pricing section misses is that the price is (negatively) related to the benefit brought to the other side: this is a key insight from the economics literature that is entirely missing in the article. Also missing is any mention of the "waterbed effect" (see e.g. the article of Genakos and Valletti in the Journal of the European Economic Association, 2011) whereby any regulatory intervention on the price on one side will have a repercussion on the price paid by the other side. Finally, from the article it is not clear if regulatory intervention is warranted at all in two-sided markets, and if so what kind of intervention.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Valletti has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

Reference : Ricardo Flores-Fillol & Alberto Iozzi & Tommaso Valletti, 2015. "Platform Pricing and Consumer Foresight: The Case of Airports," CEIS Research Paper 335, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 24 Mar 2015.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jeitschko's comment on this article

Dr. Jeitschko has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

A nice additional example here would be financial exchanges--they are some of the oldest organized markets (platforms) and play a critical role. Exchanges, such as NYSE, bring together sellers and buyers of stocks or other financial instruments that are traded. Stock markets are also an example in which it can happen that two platforms--operating side-by-side--may choose different sides of the market to subsidize.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Jeitschko has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

Reference : Jeitschko, Thomas D. & Tremblay, Mark J., 2014. "Homogeneous platform competition with endogenous homing," DICE Discussion Papers 166, HeinrichHeineUniversitat Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 July 2022 and 16 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ninamn7 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Wl2671 (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]