3537 
3336消费者数据不仅会引致一级价格歧视，也能推动产品质量提升，形成消费者数据的双重价值。基于上游供应商、下游网络零售平台和消费者的纵向利益关系，文章揭示了消费者数据共享引致的质量创新和一级价格歧视的互动机理，提出了网络零售平台的最优数据共享策略及数据共享对社会福利的影响，剖析了收益共享契约如何实现了纵向结构协调。与传统研究认为寡头结构下的价格歧视会引致企业陷入囚徒困境，并在一定条件下会降低社会福利的结论不同，本文结果表明：（1）网络零售平台与高质量供应商数据共享的条件是产品质量差异及消费者偏好成本均较低，数据共享提高了高质量供应商利润；（2）网络零售平台倾向于与低质量供应商共享数据，上游低质量供应商和下游网络零售平台的利润同时增加；（3）数据双重价值使得无论是单一渠道数据共享，还是双渠道数据共享都可以改善社会福利，只是双渠道数据共享最大程度提升了社会福利；（4）双渠道同时实施收益共享契约可以实现纵向结构协调。
网络平台共享消费者数据的策略选择及福利分析——基于数据双重价值的视角
摘要
参考文献
4 许恒,张一林,曹雨佳. 数字经济、技术溢出与动态竞合政策[J]. 管理世界,2020,(11):63−79. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1002-5502.2020.11.006
5 应珊珊,蒋传海. 收入共享契约下价格歧视及配置效率分析[J]. 管理科学学报,2018,(10):74−83. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1007-9807.2018.10.006
7 Acquisti A, Taylor C, Wagman L. The economics of privacy[J]. Journal of Economic Literature,2016,54(2): 442−492. DOI:10.1257/jel.54.2.442
8 Amaldoss W, He C. The charm of behavior-based pricing: When consumers’ taste is diverse and the consideration set is limited[J]. Journal of Marketing Research,2019,56(5): 767−790. DOI:10.1177/0022243719834945
9 Borgesius F Z, Poort J. Online price discrimination and EU data privacy law[J]. Journal of Consumer Policy,2017,40(3): 347−366. DOI:10.1007/s10603-017-9354-z
10 Cachon G P, Lariviere M A. Supply chain coordination with revenue-sharing contracts: Strengths and limitations[J]. Management Science,2005,51(1): 30−44. DOI:10.1287/mnsc.1040.0215
11 Choe C, King S, Matsushima N. Pricing with cookies: Behavior-based price discrimination and spatial competition[J]. Management Science,2018,64(12): 5669−5687. DOI:10.1287/mnsc.2017.2873
12 Chung H S. Quality choice and behavior-based price discrimination[J]. Journal of Economics,2020,131(3): 223−236. DOI:10.1007/s00712-020-00711-x
13 Conitzer V, Taylor C R, Wagman L. Hide and seek: Costly consumer privacy in a market with repeat purchases[J]. Marketing Science,2012,31(2): 277−292. DOI:10.1287/mksc.1110.0691
14 Choudhary V, Ghose A, Mukhopadhyay T, et al. Personalized pricing and quality differentiation[J]. Management Science,2005,51(7): 1120−1130. DOI:10.1287/mnsc.1050.0383
15 Chen Y X, Narasimhan C, Zhang Z J. Individual marketing with imperfect targetability[J]. Marketing Science,2001,20(1): 23−41. DOI:10.1287/mksc.20.1.23.10201
16 Encaoua D, Hollander A. First-degree discrimination by a duopoly: Pricing and quality choice[J]. The B. E. Journal of Theoretical Economics,2007,7(1): 1−19.
17 Esteves R B, Cerqueira S. Behavior-based pricing under imperfectly informed consumers[J]. Information Economics and Policy,2017,40: 60−70. DOI:10.1016/j.infoecopol.2017.06.007
18 Goldfarb A, Tucker C E. Privacy regulation and online advertising[J]. Management Science,2011,57(1): 57−71. DOI:10.1287/mnsc.1100.1246
19 Ikeda T, Toshimitsu T. Third-degree price discrimination, quality choice, and welfare[J]. Economics Letters,2010,106(1): 54−56. DOI:10.1016/j.econlet.2009.09.024
20 Jinji N, Toshimitsu T. Minimum quality standards under asymmetric duopoly with endogenous quality ordering: A note[J]. Journal of Regulatory Economics,2004,26(2): 189−199. DOI:10.1023/B:REGE.0000038931.63101.0d
21 Li K J. Behavior-based pricing in marketing channels[J]. Marketing Science,2018,37(2): 310−326. DOI:10.1287/mksc.2017.1070
22 Montes R, Sand-Zantman W, Valletti T. The value of personal information in online markets with endogenous privacy[J]. Management Science,2019,65(3): 1342−1362. DOI:10.1287/mnsc.2017.2989
23 Rhee K E, Thomadsen R. Behavior-based pricing in vertically differentiated industries[J]. Management Science,2017,63(8): 2729−2740. DOI:10.1287/mnsc.2016.2467
24 Tan Y L, Carrillo J E. Strategic analysis of the agency model for digital goods[J]. Production and Operations Management,2017,26(4): 724−741. DOI:10.1111/poms.12595
引用本文
侯泽敏, 綦勇. 网络平台共享消费者数据的策略选择及福利分析——基于数据双重价值的视角[J]. 财经研究, 2022, 48(1): 78-92.
导出参考文献，格式为：
