Abstract
We extend the Areeda–Turner rule to two-sided markets. We show that a two-sided monopolist may find it short-run profit-maximizing to charge a price below marginal cost on one side of the market. Hence showing that the price is below marginal cost on one side of a two-sided market cannot be considered a sign of predation. We then argue for a two-sided Areeda–Turner rule that takes into account price-cost margins on both sides of the market. Two examples highlight that applying a one-sided Areeda–Turner rule may lead one to assess legitimate prices as predatory or to consider predatory prices as legitimate.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 287-306 |
Journal | Review of Industrial Organization |
Volume | 46 |
Issue number | 3 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2015 |
Keywords
- daily newspapers
- market definition
- network effects
- predation
- two-sided markets