MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003333005 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2020.3602

A Simple Rule for Pricing with Limited Knowledge of Demand

2020· article· en· W3003333005 on OpenAlexaff
Maxime C. Cohen, Georgia Perakis, Robert S. Pindyck

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Market Behavior and Pricing
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemand curveEconomicsProfit (economics)MicroeconomicsPricing scheduleMarginal costMarket demand scheduleProduct (mathematics)EconometricsMathematical economicsRational pricingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How should a firm price a new product for which little is known about demand? We propose a simple and practical pricing rule for new products where demand information is limited. The rule is simple: Set price as though the demand curve were linear. Our pricing rule can be used if three conditions hold: the firm can estimate the maximum price it can charge and still expect to sell some units, the firm need not plan in advance the quantity it will sell, and marginal cost is known and constant. We show that if the true demand curve is one of many commonly used demand functions, or even a more complex (randomly generated) function, the firm can expect its profit to be close to what it would earn if it knew the true demand curve. We derive analytical performance bounds for a variety of demand functions, calculate expected profit performance for randomly generated demand curves, and evaluate the welfare implications of our pricing rule. We show that with limited demand information (maximum price and marginal cost), our simple pricing rule can be used for new products while often achieving a near-optimal performance. We also discuss the limitations of our method by identifying cases where our pricing rule does not perform well. This paper was accepted by Joshua Gans, business strategy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement ScienceSame topicConsumer Market Behavior and PricingFrench-language works237,207