MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7126182527 · doi:10.46254/wc02.20250223

Freemium Pricing and CRM Expenditures by a Digital Platform

2025· article· W7126182527 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Melina Asadi, Georges Zaccour, Can Baris Cetin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDigital Platforms and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsProfitability indexLoyaltyQuality (philosophy)Dynamic pricingCustomer baseMarkov processCustomer retentionHidden Markov model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The freemium model is widely used by digital platforms to grow their user base and generate revenue. However, these platforms face complex trade-offs between acquisition, monetization, and retention—interactions that are rarely captured within a unified framework. We address this gap by developing a steady-state profit-maximization model in which users transition among non-user, free-user, and premium-user states through a Markov process. We determine how platforms should jointly optimize acquisition spending, retention investment, ad intensity, and subscription pricing to maximize the long-run profit. The model endogenizes transition probabilities and is solved numerically to evaluate optimal strategies under varying behavioral and market conditions. Results show that platforms often prioritize acquisition over retention, even when acquisition and retention carry equal costs, due to persistent churn in the premium tier. As premium quality improves, platforms initially invest more across all levers but later reduce retention spending and raise prices as user loyalty strengthens. Likewise, more effective retention tools raise profitability by increasing pricing power rather than expanding the premium user base. These findings reveal that stronger tools and features reshape platform strategy not through user growth, but through more efficient monetization.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0120.020
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.183 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital Platforms and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207