Information vs. Automation and Implications for Dynamic Pricing

References

• Allcott H (2011) Rethinking real-time electricity pricing. Resource Energy Econom. 33(4):820–842.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allcott H, Greenstone M (2012) Is there an energy efficiency gap? J. Econom. Perspect. 26(1):3–28.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Borenstein S, Holland S (2005) On the efficiency of competitive electricity markets with time-invariant retail prices. RAND J. Econom. 36(6):469–493.Google Scholar
• Braithwait S, Hansen D, O’Sheasy M (2007) Retail electricity pricing and rate design in evolving markets. Discussion paper, CA Energy Consulting, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
• Cachon GP, Daniels KM, Lobel R (2017) The role of surge pricing on a service platform with self-scheduling capacity. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 19(3):368–384.Link, Google Scholar
• Cappers P, Goldman C, Kathan D (2010) Demand response in U.S. electricity markets: Empirical evidence. Energy 35(4):1526–1535.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen MK, Chevalier JA, Rossi PE, Oehlsen E (2017) The value of flexible work: Evidence from Uber drivers. Working paper No. w23296, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Choi H, Mela C, Balseiro S, Leary A (2017) Online display advertising markets: A literature review and future directions. Working paper, Duke University, Fuqua School of Business, Durham, NC.Google Scholar
• Compiani G, Haile P, Sant’Anna M (2018) Common values, unobserved heterogeneity, and endogenous entry in U.S. offshore oil lease auction. Working Paper No. w24795, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Erdem T, Imai S, Keane MP (2003) Brand and quantity choice dynamics under price uncertainty. Quant. Marketing Econom. 1(1):5–64.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Faruqui A, Sergici S, Sharif A (2010) The impact of informational feedback on energy consumption-A survey of the experimental evidence. Energy 35(4):1598–1608.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fowlie M, Wolfram C, Spurlock CA, Todd A, Baylis P, Cappers P (2017) Default effects and follow-on behavior: Evidence from an electricity pricing program. Working Paper No. w23553, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Guerre E, Perrigne I, Vuong Q (2009) Nonparametric identification of risk aversion in first-price auctions under exclusion restrictions. Econometrica 77(4):1193–1227.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haile PA, Hong H, Shum M (2003) Nonparametric tests for common values at first-price sealed-bid auctions. NBER Working Paper No. 10105, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Hall J, Kendrick C, Nosko C (2015) The effect of Uber's surge pricing: A case study. Working paper, Booth School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago.Google Scholar
• Harding M, Lamarche C (2016) Empowering consumers through data and smart technology: Experimental evidence on the consequences of time-of-use electricity pricing policies. J. Policy Anal. Management 35(4):906–931.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hendel I, Nevo A (2006) Measuring the implications of sales and consumer Inventory behavior. Econometrica 74(6):1637–1673.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henley A, Peirson J (1994) Time-of-use electricity pricing: Evidence from a British experiment. Econom. Lett. 45(3):421–426.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Herter K, Wayland S (2010) Residential response to critical-peak pricing of electricity: California evidence. Energy 35(4):1561–1567.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Herter K, McAuliffe P, Rosenfeld A (2007) An exploratory analysis of California residential customer response to critical peak pricing of electricity. Energy 32(1):25–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hill D (2015) How much is your spare room worth?. IEEE Spectrum 52(9):32–58.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hogan WW (2014) Time-of-use rates and real-time prices. Working paper, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Honka E (2014) Quantifying search and switching costs in the US auto industry. RAND J. Econom. 45(4):847–884.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ito K (2014) Do consumers respond to marginal or average price? Evidence from nonlinear electricity pricing. Amer. Econom. Rev. 104(2):537–563.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jessoe K, Rapson D (2014) Knowledge is (less) power: Experimental evidence from residential energy use. Amer. Econom. Rev. 104(4):1417–1438.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Joskow PL, Wolfram CD (2012) Dynamic pricing of electricity. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(3):381–385.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liu P, Ni J, Shen Q (2017) The multi-facetted effects of rebates: Evidence from energy consumption. Working paper, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, Pine Bluff.Google Scholar
• Mela CF, Gupta S, Lehmann DR (1997) The long-term impact of promotion and advertising on consumer brand choice. J. Marketing Res. 34(2):248–261.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reiss PC, White MW (2005) Household electricity demand, revisited. Rev. Econom. Stud. 72(3):853–883.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roberts J (2013) Unobserved heterogeneity and reserve prices in auctions. RAND J. Econom. 44(4):712–732.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Seiler S (2013) The impact of search costs on consumer behavior: A dynamic approach. Quant. Marketing Econom. 11(2):155–203.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shichor YK, Netzer O (2018) Automating the B2B salesperson pricing decisions: Can machines replace humans and when? Working paper, New York University Stern School of Business, New York.Google Scholar
• Stigler GJ (1961) The economics of information. J. Political Econom. 69(3):213–225.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wooldridge JM (2015) Control function methods in applied econometrics. J. Human Resources 50(2):420–445.Crossref, Google Scholar