...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of the Operational Research Society >Pricing policy selection for a platform providing vertically differentiated services with self-scheduling capacity
【24h】

Pricing policy selection for a platform providing vertically differentiated services with self-scheduling capacity

机译:为具有自我调度容量提供垂直差异化服务的平台定价策略选择

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

In this article, we study three pricing policies for a monopoly platform, such as Uber or Gett, who offers vertically differentiated services to customers via multiple types of self-scheduling providers. Ideally, the platform can employ a "dynamic pricing" policy, which pays providers wages and charges customers prices for the transactions of different services that both adjust based on prevailing demand conditions, to maximize its profit. However, since it is challenging for the platform to implement and for providers to understand this policy, the other two pricing policies are commonly adopted in practice, that is, "surge pricing" policy (adopted by Uber) which pays providers a fixed commission of its dynamic prices, and "static pricing" policy (applied by Gett) which pays providers a fixed commission of its fixed prices. By observing these phenomena, we propose to study and discuss the platform's profit performance of these three pricing strategies. We show that the surge pricing policy does not always perform well, which can explain why some on-demand platforms would implement the static pricing policy in practice. Also, although the dynamic pricing policy will significantly improve the platform's profit, we find that the profitability of the static (surge) pricing policy would approach that of the dynamic pricing policy if the platform can balance the number of different types of providers and/or reduce the commission rate.
机译:在本文中,我们研究了垄断平台的三个定价政策,例如优步或Gett,他们通过多种类型的自我调度提供商向客户提供垂直差异化的服务。理想情况下,该平台可以采用“动态定价”政策,该政策支付提供商的工资和收取不同服务的交易价格,以基于现行需求条件调整,以最大限度地提高其利润。但是,由于对该平台实施和为提供商了解这一政策的平台有挑战性,另外两个定价策略通常在实践中采用,即“超级定价”政策(由优步采用),该政策支付提供者固定佣金其动态价格和“静态定价”政策(由Gett应用),支付提供商固定佣金的固定价格。通过观察这些现象,我们建议学习并讨论这三项定价策略的平台的利润绩效。我们表明浪涌定价政策并不总是良好的表现,这可以解释为什么某些按需平台将在实践中实施静态定价政策。此外,虽然动态定价政策将显着提高平台的利润,但如果平台可以平衡不同类型提供者的数量和/或/或/或/或/或/或者,我们认为动态定价政策将显着提高平台的利润,仍然会接近动态定价政策的盈利能力。减少佣金率。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号