What Price Fairness? a Bargaining Study
Management Science
Internet Shopping Agents: Virtual Co-Location and Competition
Marketing Science
Editorial: Defining Interesting Research Problems
Marketing Science
R&D, Marketing, and the Success of Next-Generation Products
Marketing Science
Managing Online Auctions: Current Business and Research Issues
Management Science
Consumer Sequential Search: Not Enough or Too Much?
Marketing Science
Contingent Pricing to Reduce Price Risks
Marketing Science
"Let Me Talk to My Manager": Haggling in a Competitive Environment
Marketing Science
Partial-Repeat-Bidding in the Name-Your-Own-Price Channel
Marketing Science
Buyer Search Costs and Endogenous Product Design
Marketing Science
Advertising in a Distribution Channel
Marketing Science
Editorial: Who Is Afraid to Give Freedom of Speech to Marketing Folks?
Marketing Science
Editorial: Fifty Years of Marketing Science
Marketing Science
EditorialAre Consumers Rational? Experimental Evidence?
Marketing Science
Editorial: Save ResearchAbandon the Case Method of Teaching
Marketing Science
Editorial: Who Is Afraid to Give Freedom of Speech to Marketing Folks?
Marketing Science
Hi-index | 0.00 |
Past research reveals an extraordinary number and variety of transaction games, often with different rules. For example, buy and sell offers can be take-it-or-leave-it, irrevocable, of limited duration, negotiable, contingent on events, et cetera. The possible sets of rules seem endless. Past (often, very insightful) research has focused on optimization, given particular rules of the game. This focus often overlooks why players choose to play the game. Indeed, assuming that an exchange will occur makes the marketing function (e.g., facilitating exchanges) inconsequential. Unlike inescapable market games between rival firms, buyers and sellers often choose whether to play transaction games. Hence, game design (i.e., setting the rules of the game) becomes vital, because the design determines both the likelihood of desirable outcomes (e.g., the best transaction price) and whether (or how many) players will choose to play. We need more research revealing the desirability of various rule sets for different target groups and revealing rules that enhance the benefits to all players. For example, a particular auction game might provide sellers with liquidity (i.e., faster transactions) while providing buyers with unique items at bargain prices. We should also explore the interaction of rules and player benefits (e.g., liquidity, anonymity, likelihood of a transaction, etc.).