Quality Disclosure Strategy under Customer Learning Opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For experience goods (products or services), given the uncertainty about their actual quality and the growing popularity of social media, potential customers nowadays depend on experiences of peers who have used the goods previously to learn about their quality. In this paper, we study how such customer learning affects a firm's (credible) quality disclosure strategy as well as other relevant decisions. To model such learning, we adopt the anecdotal reasoning framework, which we show to be rational and a special case of the Bayesian framework. There are two main insights that we glean from this study. First, we find that the incorporation of the learning behavior significantly alters the optimal disclosure strategy from its single threshold structure in the extant literature to a multi‐threshold policy. Specifically, firms with high‐ or low‐quality goods prefer not disclosing quality information in order to utilize the pricing flexibility that such a strategy affords; on the other hand, a medium‐quality firm might disclose its quality level, even though this hinders its pricing flexibility, so that customers are confident about it when purchasing the product. Second, we show that the change in the disclosure strategy impacts the optimal pricing decision, which can be non‐monotone in the quality level. Our results suggest that when disclosure is expensive, high‐quality firms are better off educating potential customers through advertising or social media, rather than disclosing their quality levels. They also suggest to policymakers that mandatory quality disclosure may not be socially optimal as more customers obtain quality information through peer learning. Our findings are robust and hold true under quite general customer valuation distributions, in capacitated settings and even when price can be used as a signal of quality level by firms.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".