Journal of Economics

, Volume 120, Issue 2, pp 135–169 | Cite as

Consumer flexibility, data quality and location choice

  • Irina BayeEmail author
  • Irina Hasnas


We analyze firms’ location choices in a Hotelling model with two-dimensional consumer heterogeneity, along addresses and transport cost parameters (flexibility). Firms can price discriminate based on perfect data on consumer addresses and (possibly) imperfect data on consumer flexibility. We show that firms’ location choices depend on how strongly consumers differ in flexibility. Precisely, when consumers are relatively homogeneous, equilibrium locations are socially optimal regardless of the quality of customer flexibility data. However, when consumers are relatively differentiated, firms make socially optimal location choices only when customer flexibility data becomes perfect. These results are driven by the optimal strategy of a firm on its turf, monopolization or market-sharing, which in turn depends on consumer heterogeneity in flexibility. Our analysis is motivated by the availability of customer data, which allows firms to practice third-degree price discrimination based on both consumer characteristics relevant in spatial competition, addresses and transport cost parameters.


Location choice Price discrimination Customer data 

JEL Classification

D43 L13 R30 R32 

Supplementary material

712_2016_491_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (113 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 114 KB)


  1. Anderson SP, de Palma A (1988) Spatial price discrimination with heterogeneous products. Rev Econ Stud 55:573–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Deakin University Australia Worldly and Pitney Bowes Software (2012) New location perspectives in retail: in the zone. Retail White Paper
  3. eMarketer (2015) Mobile Ad spending to overtake print in the UK. 30 Sept 2015
  4. Ferguson D (2013) How supermarkets get your data- and what they do with it. The Guardian. Accessed date 8 June 2013
  5. Hamilton JH, Thisse J-F (1992) Duopoly with spatial and quantity-dependent price discrimination. Region Sci Urban Econ 22:175–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Irmen A, Thisse J-F (1998) Competition in multi-characteristic spaces: hotelling was almost right. J Econ Theory 78:76–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jentzsch N, Sapi G, Suleymanova I (2013) Targeted pricing and customer data sharing among rivals. Int J Ind Organ 31:131–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lederer PJ, Hurter AP (1986) Competition of firms: discriminatory pricing and location. Econometrica 54:623–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Linkhorn T (2013) Retailers use variety of ways to track consumer habits through loyalty programs: the blade. 11 Aug 2013
  10. Liu Q, Serfes K (2004) Quality of information and oligopolistic price discrimination. J Econ Manag Strateg 13:671–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Liu Q, Serfes K (2005) Imperfect price discrimination in a vertical differentiation model. Int J Ind Organ 23:341–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Liu Q, Serfes K (2007) Market segmentation and collusive behavior. Int J Ind Organ 25:355–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mikians J, Gyarmati L, Erramilli V, Laoutaris N (2012) Detecting price and search discrimination on the internet. Hotnets’ 12, Seattle, WA. 29–30 Oct 2012
  14. Ross B. (2013) Canned Goods–not Canned Prices With Personalized Pricing. How Grocers Can Implement a Personalized Pricing Strategy in Four Steps. Canadian Grocer, July 24, 2013.
  15. Sapi G, Suleymanova I (2013) Consumer flexibility. Data quality and targeted pricing, DICE Discussion paper no 117Google Scholar
  16. Shaffer G, Zhang ZJ (1995) Competitive coupon targeting. Market Sci 14:395–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shaffer G, Zhang ZJ (2002) Competitive one-to-one promotions. Manage Sci 48:1143–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tabuchi T (1994) Two-stage two-dimensional spatial competition between two firms. Region Sci Urban Econ 24:207–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Thisse J-F, Vives X (1988) On the strategic choice of spatial price policy. Am Econ Rev 78:122–137Google Scholar
  20. Valentino-Devries J, Singer-Vine J, Soltani A (2012) Websites vary prices, deals based on users’ information. The Wall Street Journal. 24 Dec 2012
  21. Valletti TM (2002) Location choice and price discrimination in a duopoly. Region Sci Urban Econ 32:339–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Winterman D (2013) Tesco: how one supermarket came to dominate. BBC news magazine. 9 Sept 2013

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE)Heinrich Heine University of DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations