Dynamic Pricing Game-Game Theory For Managers-Lecture Slides, Slides of Game Theory

Content of Game Theory for Managers course includes ratiinality, prisoner dilemma, Loyal servant, assurance, credibility, stratigic subtitutes, entry, brinkmanship, negotiation, auctions, signaling, reputation etc. This file contains: Dynamic, Pricing, Game, Trucking, Entry, Company, Million, Market, Served, Products

Typology: Slides

2011/2012

Uploaded on 08/04/2012

muneb
muneb 🇮🇳

4.3

(37)

129 documents

1 / 63

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
1
Lecture 6 Game Plan
Strategic moves continued
… how to be credible
Dynamic Pricing Game
Strategic substitutes and complements
commitments to be tough vs. soft
puppy dog ploy, lean & hungry look, etc.
docsity.com
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa
pfd
pfe
pff
pf12
pf13
pf14
pf15
pf16
pf17
pf18
pf19
pf1a
pf1b
pf1c
pf1d
pf1e
pf1f
pf20
pf21
pf22
pf23
pf24
pf25
pf26
pf27
pf28
pf29
pf2a
pf2b
pf2c
pf2d
pf2e
pf2f
pf30
pf31
pf32
pf33
pf34
pf35
pf36
pf37
pf38
pf39
pf3a
pf3b
pf3c
pf3d
pf3e
pf3f

Partial preview of the text

Download Dynamic Pricing Game-Game Theory For Managers-Lecture Slides and more Slides Game Theory in PDF only on Docsity!

Lecture 6 Game Plan^ „^ Strategic moves continued^ „^ … how to be credible^ „^ Dynamic Pricing Game^ „^ Strategic substitutes and complements^ „^ commitments to be tough vs. soft^ „^ puppy dog ploy, lean & hungry look, etc.

docsity.com

Trucking Entry (from Chevalier reading)^ „^ A new trucking company is consideringentering two

natural monopoly

markets for hauling agricultural products 1. Market 1 currently served by railroadwith MC = $.20/ton-mile and track thatcost $20 million 2. Market 2 currently served by truckingcompany with MC = $.20/ton-mile andtrucks that cost $20 million

docsity.com

Conventional Wisdom „^ Don’t burn bridges. „^ Decrease downside risk. „^ It is nice to have more options. „^ This ignores the strategic value ofcommitment!

docsity.com

Credibility^ „^ Remove strategies^ „^ from your own set of future choices thestrategies that may tempt you in the future^ „^ Example: giving away your patent^ „^ Reduce payoffs^ „^ from those strategies that may tempt you^ „^ Example: customers as hostages.^ Slide courtesy of Mike Shor, Vanderbilt University.

docsity.com

  • docsity.com
  • docsity.com

Removing Strategies II „^ Burning Bridges^ „^ Power comes from

not^ being able to retreat

docsity.com

Burning Bridges “A surrounded enemy mustbe given a way out” - Sun Tzu in “Art of War”, 400BC

docsity.com

Burning Bridges: Example 2 „ Polaroid instant photography^ „^ Refused to diversify out of its core business.With all its chips in instant photography, it wascommitted to fight against any intruder in themarket.^ „^ On April 20, 1976, after twenty-eight years ofa Polaroid monopoly on the instantphotography market, Eastman Kodak enteredthe fray.

docsity.com

Burning Bridges: Example 2^ „^ 12 October 1990: Court awards Polaroid a $900million judgment against Kodak. Kodak forced towithdraw from market

docsity.com

The Bocchicchio Family^ „^ Mafia in Italy, peaceful in the U.S.^ „^ Mob bosses need to be able to meetsafely, but no one trusts anybody^ „^ Enter the Bocchicchio family^ „^ certain revenge if any Bocchicchio harmed^ „^ act as “hostages” for both sides.^ • if Don Corleone is killed by Don Barzini, then theCorleone family will kill their Bocchiccio^ • But then the Bocchiccio will blame

Barzini^ since he promised the Bocchiccio would be safe!!

docsity.com

Committing to Fight^ „^ Make yielding market shareintolerable^ „^ adopt high FC, low MC technology^ „^ sign irrevocable agreements forexpensive raw materials^ „^ load up on debt, or covenant debt somanagement loses control of the firm ifmarket share slips

docsity.com

Island Bars^ „^ Two firms:

Firm 1^ and

Firm 2

„^ Two prices: low ($4) or high ($5 ) „^ 3000 captive consumers per firm „^ 4000 floating go to firm with lowest price

Firm 2 Low High 20 , 20 Low

15 , 28 High

Firm 1

docsity.com

Contracting with Customers^ „^ The game is a prisoner’s dilemma^ „^ Both firms prefer:

{High,High} „^ Only equilibrium:

{Low , Low}

„^ Cannot credibly promise to play High „^ Even if committed to High,other firm would still respond with Low „ How to resolve this? „^ Third-party contracts with customers^ Slide courtesy of Mike Shor, Vanderbilt University.

docsity.com