Abstract
AbstractNetwork effects typically generate multiple equilibria in two‐sided markets. To overcome the methodological challenge of selecting an appropriate equilibrium, this article shows that many two‐sided market models are weighted potential games, and therefore, a refinement of Nash equilibrium justified by many theoretical and experimental studies, potential maximization, pins down an equilibrium. Under potential maximization, platforms often subsidize one side and charge the other, that is, divide and conquer. The primary determinant of which side to subsidize/monetize is cross‐side network effects. This divide‐and‐conquer strategy implies that platforms are often designed to favor the money side much more than the subsidy side.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call