Is More Precise Word of Mouth Better for a High Quality Firm? ... Not Always
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consumers often resort to third-party information such as word of mouth, testimonials and reviews to learn more about the quality of a new product. However, it may be difficult for consumers to assess the precision of such information. We use a monopoly setting to investigate how the precision of third-party information and consumers' ability to recognize precision impact firm profits. Conventional wisdom suggests that when a firm is high quality, it should prefer a market where consumers are better at recognizing precise signals. Yet in a broad range of conditions, we show that when the firm is high quality, it is more profitable to sell to consumers who do not recognize precise signals. Given the ability of consumers to assess precision, we show a low quality firm always suffers from more precise information. However, a high quality firm can also suffer from more precise information. The precision range in which a high quality firm gains or suffers from better information depends on how skilled consumers are at recognizing precision.
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 | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.002 |
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".