Monopoly pricing with limited demand information

  • Serkan S Eren
  • Costis Maglaras
Research Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. An Associated Publication of the INFORMS Revenue Management and Pricing Section – CONFERENCE ISSUE


Traditional monopoly pricing models assume that firms have full information about the market demand and consumer preferences. In this article, we study a prototypical monopoly pricing problem for a seller with limited market information and different levels of demand learning capability under relative performance criterion of the competitive ratio (CR). We provide closed-form solutions for the optimal pricing policies for each case and highlight several important structural insights. We note the following: (1) From the firm's viewpoint the worst-case operating conditions are when it faces a homogeneous market where all customers value the product equally, but where the specific valuation is unknown. In cases with partial demand information, the worse case cumulative willingness-to-pay distribution becomes piecewise-uniform as opposed to a point mass. (2) Dynamic (skimming) pricing arises naturally as a hedging mechanism for the firm against the two principal risks that it faces: first, the risk of foregoing revenue from pricing too low, and second, the risk of foregoing sales from pricing too high. And, (3) even limited learning, for example market information at a few price points, leads to significant performance gains.


robust pricing competitive analysis regret revenue mangement 


  1. Araman, V.F. and Caldentey, R.A. (2005) Dynamic Pricing for Non-perishable Products with Demand Learning. New York, NY 10012: New York University. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  2. Aviv, Y. and Pazgal, A. (2005) Pricing of Short Life-cycle Products through Active Learning. St. Louis, MO 63130: Washington University. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, M.O. and Queyranne, M. (2009) Toward robust revenue management: Competitive analysis of online booking. Operations Research 57 (4): 950–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ben-Tal, A. and Nemirovski, A. (1998) Robust convex optimization. Mathematics of Operations Research 23 (4): 769–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergemann, D. and Schlag, K. (2008) Pricing without priors. Journal of the European Economic Association 6 (2–3): 560–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bertsimas, D. and Popescu, I. (2005) Optimal inequalities in probability theory: A convex optimization approach. SIAM Journal of Optimization 15 (3): 780–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bertsimas, D. and Sim, M. (2003) The price of robustness. Operations Research 52: 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bertsimas, D. and Thiele, A. (2004) A robust optimization approach to supply chain management. Proceedings of the Springer Lecture Notes an Computer Science Vol. 3064, pp. 86–100, Springer, New York, NY, 2004.Google Scholar
  9. Besbes, O. and Zeevi, A. (forthcoming) Dynamic pricing without knowing the demand function: Risk bounds and near-optimal algorithms. Operations Research (in press).Google Scholar
  10. El Ghaoui, L. and Lebret, H. (1997) Robust solutions to least-squares problems with uncertain data. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 18 (4): 1035–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eren, S. and van Ryzin, G. (2006) Product Line Positioning without Marked Information. New York, NY 10027L: Columbia University. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  12. Farias, V.F. and Van Roy, B. (2006) Dynamic Pricing with a Prior on Market Response. Stanford, CA 94305: Stanford University. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  13. Gallego, G. and van Ryzin, G. (1994) Optimal dynamic pricing of inventories with stochastic demand over finite horizons. Management Science 40 (8): 999–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaur, V. and Fisher, M.L. (2005) In-store experiments to determine the impact of price on sales. Production and Operations Management 14 (4): 377–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harris, M. and Raviv, A. (1981) A theory of monopoly pricing schemes with demand uncertainty. American Economic Review 71 (3): 347–365.Google Scholar
  16. Huh, T., Levi, R., Rusmevichientong, P. and Orlin, J.B. (forthcoming) Adaptive data-driven inventory control policies based on Kaplan-Meier estimator. Operations Research (in press).Google Scholar
  17. Lan, Y., Gao, H., Ball, M. and Karaesmen, I. (2008) Revenue management with limited demand information. Management Science 54 (9): 1594–1609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lazear, E. (1986) Retail pricing and clearance sales. American Economic Review 76: 14–32.Google Scholar
  19. Lim, A.E.B. and Shanthikumar, J.G. (2007) Relative entropy, exponential utility, and robust dynamic pricing. Operations Research 55 (2): 198–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lobo, M.S. and Boyd, S. (2003) Pricing and Learning with Uncertain Demand. Durham, NC 27708: Duke University. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  21. Maglaras, C. and Meissner, J. (2006) Dynamic pricing strategies for multi-product revenue management problems. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 8 (2): 136–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pashigian, B. (1988) Demand uncertainty and sales: A study of fashion and markdown pricing. American Economic Review 78 (5): 936–953.Google Scholar
  23. Pashigian, B. and Bowen, B. (1991) Why are products sold on sale? Explanations of pricing regularities. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 106: 1014–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Perakis, G. and Roels, G. (2007) Robust Controls for Network Revenue Management. Los Angeles, CA 90095: UCLA. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  25. Perakis, G. and Roels, G. (2008) Regret in the newsvendor model with partial information. Operations Research 56 (1): 188–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Perakis, G. and Sood, A. (2003) Competitive Multi-period Pricing with Fixed Inventories. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  27. Talluri, K. and van Ryzin, G. (2004) The Theory and Practice of Revenue Management. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Van Ryzin, G. and McGill, J. (2000) Revenue management without forecasting or optimization: An adaptive algorithm for determining airline seat protection levels. Management Science 46 (6): 760–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Serkan S Eren
    • 1
  • Costis Maglaras
  1. 1.Barclays Capital Inc.New YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations