This study seeks to the answer the question of how an individual would trade off between listing fee (i.e., cost of listing an auction item) and transaction probability (i.e., the chance that a product will be sold). Applying the trade-off decision-making paradigm into the auction context, we examine a seller’s choice of online auction outlet and subsequent starting price strategies when facing the trade-off between transaction probability and listing fee. Results from a set of laboratory experiments suggest that a seller would be willing to incur a high cost in exchange for a higher transaction prospect. Furthermore, if the expected transaction probability is high, a seller is more likely to set a high starting price despite incurring a high listing fee. The implications for theory and practice are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Luckling-Reiley (2000, p. 249), who collected data on Yahoo!Auction, eBay and Amazon separately in 1999, observed “difference in fees appears to have an important effect on sellers’ incentives and behavior. With fees (even small ones) for auction listings, a seller has more incentive to make sure that her auction results in an actual transaction. Indeed a quick check revealed that most Yahoo!Auction had very high minimum bids or reserve prices, with the sellers apparently hoping for someone to come along and be willing to pay their high prices. By contrast, at eBay and Amazon, sellers knew that they would incur a listing fee whether the item sold or not, so they had an incentive to set reasonably low reserve prices to increase the probability of an actual transaction. Our summer 1999 data confirmed the existence of this effect: eBay had 54% of all auctions result in a sale, Amazon’s fraction was 38%, while Yahoo!’s fraction was only 16%. With five-sixths of its auctions failing to receive any acceptable bids, Yahoo! had a significantly lower auction transaction rate than either eBay or Amazon. Thus incentives may be working in the predicted direction: the higher the listing fee, the more careful sellers are to design an auction listing which actually results in a transaction.”
Anderson, J. C., Jain, D. C., & Chintagunta, P. K. (1993). Customer value assessment in business markets: a state-of-practice study. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 1, 3–28.
Antony, S., Lin, Z., & Xu, B. (2006). Determinants of escrow service adoption in consumer-to-consumer online auction market: an experimental study. Decision Support Systems, 42(33), 1889–1900.
Ariely, D., Ockenfels, A., & Roth, A. E. (2005). An experimental analysis of ending rules in internet auctions. RAND Journal of Economics, 36(4), 890–907.
Ba, S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2002). Evidence of the effect of trust building technology in electronic markets: price premium and buyer behavior. MIS Quarterly, 26, 243–268.
Bapna, R., Goes, P., & Gupta, A. (2001a). Comparative analysis of multi-item online auctions: evidence from the laboratory. Decision Support Systems, 32, 135–153.
Bapna, R., Goes, P., & Gupta, A. (2001b). On-line auctions: insights and analysis. Communications of the ACM, 44, 42–50.
Bapna, R., Goes, P., & Gupta, A. (2003). User heterogeneity and its impact on electronic auction market design: an empirical exploration. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 21–43.
Becker-Olsen, K. L. (2000). Point, click and shop: an exploratory investigation of consumer perceptions of online shopping. Paper presented at AMA summer conference, pp. 62–63.
Bettman, J. R., & Sujan, M. (1987). Effects of framing on evaluation of comparable and noncomparable alternatives by expert and novice consumers. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 141–154.
Bettman, J. R., Johnson, E. J., & Payne, J. W. (1991). Consumer decision making. In T. Robertson & H. Kassarjian (Eds.), Handbook of consumer theory and research (pp. 50–84). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 187–217.
Blattberg, R. C., & Wisniewsi, K. J. (1989). Price-induced patterns of competition. Marketing Science, 8, 291–309.
Carmon, Z., & Simonson, I. (1998). Price-quality trade-offs in choice versus matching: new insights into the prominence effect. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7, 323–343.
Curry, D. J., & Faulds, J. (1986). Indexing product quality: issues, theory, and results. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 134–145.
Dholakia, U. M., & Simonson, I. (2005). The effect of explicit reference points on consumer choice and online bidding behavior. Marketing Science, 24(2), 206–217.
Green, P. E., Krieger, A. M., Agarwal, M. K., & Johnson, R. M. (1991). Adaptive conjoint analysis: some caveats and suggestions: comment. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 215–225.
Hardie, B. G., Johnson, E. J., & Fader, P. S. (1993). Modeling loss aversion and reference dependence effects on brand choice. Marketing Science, 12, 378–394.
Heath, T. B., & Chatterjee, S. (1995). Asymmetric decoy effects on lower-quality versus higher-quality brands: meta-analytic and experimental evidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 268–284.
Hogarth, R. M., & Hillel, J. E. (1990). Venture theory: a model of decision weights. Management Science, 36, 780–803.
Jaideep, P., & Tellis, G. J. (2000). Do consumers ever learn? Analysis of segment behavior in experimental markets. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 19–34.
Kalyanam, K., & McIntyre, S. (2002). The e-marketing mix: a contribution of the e-tailing wars. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30, 487–499.
Kim, M. S., & Ahn, J. H. (2007). Management of trust in the e-marketplace: the role of the buyer’s experience in building trust. Journal of Information Technology, 22, 119–132.
Kim, B., Barua, A., & Whinston, A. B. (2002). Virtual field experiments for a digital economy: a new research methodology for exploring an information economy. Decision Support Systems, 32(3), 215–231.
Klemperer, P. (1999). Auction theory: a guide to the literature. Journal of Economic Surveys, 13, 227–286.
Luce, M. F., Payne, J. W., & Bettman, J. R. (1998). Choice processing in emotionially difficulty decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 23, 384–405.
Luce, M. F., Payne, J. W., & Bettman, J. R. (2001). Emotional decisions: tradeoff difficulty and coping in consumer choice. Monographs of the Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 1–209.
Luckling-Reiley, D. (2000). Auctions on the Internet: what’s being auctioned, and how? Journal of Industrial Economics, 48, 227–252.
Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, K. J. (2000). Milked for all their worth: Competitive arousal and escalation in the Chicago cow auctions. Working Paper, Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University.
Meyer, R. J., & Kahn, B. E. (1991). Probabilistic models of consumer choice behavior. In T. Robertson & H. Kassarjian (Eds.), Handbook of consumer theory and research (pp. 85–123). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Meyer, R. J., & Shi, Y. (1995). Sequential choice under ambiguity: intuitive solutions to the armed-bandit problem. Management Science, 41(5), 817–834.
Nowlis, S. M., & Simonson, I. (1997). Attribute-task compatibility as a determinant of consumer preference reversals. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 205–218.
Park, Y. H., & Bradlow, E. T. (2005). An integrated model for bidder behavior in internet auctions: whether, who, when, and how much. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(4), 470–482.
Pinker, E. J., Seidmann, A., & Vakrat, Y. (2003). Managing online auctions: current business and research issues. Management Science, 49, 1457–1484.
Shafir, E. B., Osherson, D. N., & Smith, E. E. (1993). The advantage model: a comparative theory of evaluation and choice under risk. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 325–378.
Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 281–295.
Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1968). Relative importance of probabilities and payoffs in risk taking. Journal of Experimental Psychological Monograph, 78(3), 1–18. part 2.
Smith, V. L. (1982). Microeconomic systems as experimental science. American Economic Review, 72, 923–955.
Stern, B. B., & Stafford, M. R. (2006). Individual and social determinants of winning bids in online auctions. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5(1), 43–55.
Vakrat, Y., & Seidmann, A. (2000). Implications of the bidders’ arrival process on the design of online auctions. Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science.
Yokoo, M., Sakurai, Y., & Matsubara, S. (2004). The effect of false-name bids in combinatorial auctions: new fraud in internet auctions. Games and Economic Behavior, 46, 174–188.
The authors like to thank Mr. Li Zhu at the National University of Singapore for his assistance during the data collection.
Responsible editor: Hans-Dieter Zimmermann
About this article
Cite this article
Tan, CH., Teo, HH. & Xu, H. Online auction: the effects of transaction probability and listing price on a seller’s decision-making behavior. Electron Markets 20, 67–79 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-010-0029-8
- Online auction
- Seller behavior
- D44 – Auctions