Pricing Time-Sensitive Services Based on Realized Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Services such as FedEx charge up-front fees but reimburse customers for delays. However, lead-time pricing studies ignore such delay refunds. This paper contributes to filling this gap. It studies revenue-maximizing tariffs that depend on realized lead times for a provider serving multiple time-sensitive customer types. We relax two key assumptions of the standard model in the lead-time pricing literature. First, customers may be risk averse (RA) with respect to payoff uncertainty, where payoff equals valuation, minus delay cost, minus payment. Second, tariffs may be arbitrary functions of realized lead times. The standard model assumes risk-neutral (RN) customers and restricts attention to flat rates. We report three main findings: (1) With RN customers, flat-rate pricing maximizes revenues but leaves customers exposed to payoff variability. (2) With RA customers, flat-rate pricing is suboptimal. If types are distinguishable, the optimal lead-time-dependent tariffs fully insure delay cost risk and yield the same revenue as under optimal flat rates for RN customers. With indistinguishable RA types, the differentiated first-best tariffs may be incentive-compatible even for uniform service, yielding higher revenues than with RN customers. (3) Under price and capacity optimization, lead-time-dependent pricing yields higher profits with less capacity compared to flat-rate pricing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".