Mechanism Design for “Free” but “No Free Disposal” Services: The Economics of Personalization Under Privacy Concerns

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1100.1210

References

  • Amazon.com What is the A9 Instant Reward? (2004) . Retrieved July 21, 2006, http://www.amazon.com/gp/xs/sharethepi.htmlGoogle Scholar
  • Baron D. P., Myerson R. B. Regulating a monopolist with unknown costs. Econometrica (1982) 50(4):911–930CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bishop T. Microsoft shifts strategy with “cashback”: Shoppers who use Live Search will get a bonus. Seattle Post-Intelligencer (2008) May 26). http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-05-26/business/17153713_1_microsoft-search-engine-search-leader-google-new-search-serviceGoogle Scholar
  • Chellappa R. K., Shivendu S. A model of advertiser—Portal contracts: Personalization strategies under privacy concerns. Inform. Tech. Management (2006) 7(1):7–19CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Chellappa R. K., Shivendu S. An economic model of privacy: A property rights approach to regulatory choices for online personalization. J. Management Inform. Systems (2007) 24(3):193–226CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Cheng H. K., Koehler G. J. Optimal pricing policies of Web-enabled application services. Decision Support Systems (2003) 35(3):259–272CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Culnan M. J., Armstrong P. K. Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: An empirical investigation. Organ. Sci. (1999) 10(1):104–115LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Geng X., Stinchcombe M. B., Whinston A. B. Bundling information goods of decreasing value. Management Sci. (2005) 51(4):662–667LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Jain S., Kannan P. K. Pricing of information products on online servers: Issues, models, and analysis. Management Sci. (2002) 48(9):1123–1142LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Levi M. D., Nault B. R. Converting technology to mitigate environmental damage. Management Sci. (2004) 50(8):1015–1030LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Maskin E., Riley J. Monopoly with incomplete information. RAND J. Econom. (1984) 15(2):171–196CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Mendelson H., Whang S. Optimal incentive-compatible priority pricing for the M/M/1 queue. Oper. Res. (1990) 38(5):870–883LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Murthi B. P. S., Sarkar S. The role of the management sciences in research on personalization. Management Sci. (2003) 49(10):1344–1362LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Mussa M., Rosen S. Monopoly and product quality. J. Econom. Theory (1978) 18(2):301–317CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Nahata B., Kokovin S. G., Zhelobodko E. Package sizes, tariffs, quantity discount and premium. (2006) . Working paper, http://ssrn.com/abstract=909295CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Raghu T. S., Kannan P. K., Rao H. R., Whinston A. B. Dynamic profiling of consumers for customized offerings over the Internet: A model and analysis. Decision Support Systems (2001) 32(2):117–134CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Repullo R. The existence of equilibrium without free disposal in economies with transaction costs and incomplete markets. Internat. Econom. Rev. (1987) 28(2):275–290CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Resnick P., Varian H. R. Recommender systems. Comm. ACM (1997) 40(3):56–58CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Rothwell G., Rust J. On the optimal lifetime of nuclear power plants. J. Bus. Econom. Statist. (1997) 15(2):195–208Google Scholar
  • Rust R. T., Kannan P. K., Peng N. The customer economics of Internet privacy. J. Acad. Marketing Sci. (2002) 30(4):455–464CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Sandholm T., Suri S. BOB: Improved winner determination in combinatorial auctions and generalizations. Artificial Intelligence (2003) 145(1–2):33–58CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Sandholm T., Suri S., Gilpin A., Levine D. Winner determination in combinatorial auction generalizations. AAMAS'02: Proc. First Internat. Joint Conf. on Autonomous (2002) (ACM, New York) 69–76CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Shapiro C., Varian H. R. Information rules. (1998) . Working paper, Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  • Sundararajan A. Nonlinear pricing of information goods. Management Sci. (2004) 50(12):1660–1673LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Volokh E. Personalizaton and privacy. Comm. ACM (2000) 43(8):84–88CrossrefGoogle Scholar
INFORMS site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some are essential to make our site work; Others help us improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Please read our Privacy Statement to learn more.