The principal results of Head and Kumar’s article are derived under the natural assumption that the number of price offers received per period by buyers is distributed Poisson. This case is of interest for two reasons. First, because the infinite sums and integrals that enter the equilibrium conditions can be solved in closed form, the derivations of the model’s implications are straightforward. Second, by regarding the arrival rate as the relevant measure of search intensity, the analysis of endogenous search effort is simplified. The empirical relationship between the rate of inflation and cross seller variation in prices has a long history. However, it is primarily empirical work without a theory. The article by Head and Kumar (2005) provides an insightful theoretical foundation for the relationship with empirical content. The primary purpose of this comment is to derive the principal results of the article using a special but natural assumption about the distribution of the number of price quotes received by buyers. Wherever possible, the authors’ notation is utilized. Any new variables are introduced in the text. 2. THE MODEL The model studied is a synthesis of the monetary exchange model proposed by Shi, on one hand, and the price setting model of Burdett and Judd on the other. In the Burdett‐Judd model, each sellers sets its price to maximize expected profit given those of others, the set of prices are described by a price offer c.d.f. F(p), and each buyer observes a random sample of offers from this distribution each period. The number of offers, k ,i sitself a random variable. Let qk represent the probability that k offers will be received by any buyer. In the article, the authors assume that at least one price offer is always received. It will be useful to extend the analysis here slightly by assuming that receiving no offer is a possibility, i.e., q0 ≥ 0.