In many contests, players can influence their chances of winning through multiple activities or "arms". We develop a model of multi-armed contests and axiomatize its contest success function. We then analyze the outcomes of the multi-armed contest and the effects of allowing or restricting arms. Restricting an arm increases total effort directed to other arms if and only if restricting the arm balances the contest. Restricting an arm tends to reduce rent dissipation because it reduces the discriminatory power of the contest. But it also tends to increase rent dissipation if it balances the contest. Less rent is dissipated if an arm is restricted as long as no player is excessively stronger than the other with that arm. If players are sufficiently symmetric in an arm, both players are better off if that arm is restricted. Nevertheless, players cannot agree to restrict the arm if their costs of using the arm are sufficiently low.

We develop a model of dynamic multi‐activity contests. Players simultaneously choose efforts in long‐run activities, observe each other's efforts in these activities, and then simultaneously choose efforts in short‐run activities. A player's long‐run and short‐run efforts complement each other in determining the player's probability of winning. We compare the outcomes of this two‐stage model to those of the corresponding model in which players choose efforts in all activities simultaneously. Interestingly, effort expenditures are always lower in the sequential multi‐activity contest than in the simultaneous multi‐activity contest. The implications of this result for the organization of military, litigation, innovation, academic, and sporting contests are highlighted.

We study the effects of risk disclosure and product liability on product safety.

Consumers take care by paying attention to warning labels.

Producer care has a lulling effect on consumer care.

Consumer care has a vigilance effect on producer care.

Visible warnings tend to reduce harm, but stronger liability can improve welfare.

This paper examines the liability and labeling approaches to regulating product safety. Stronger product liability increases producer care, which then has a negative “lulling effect” on consumer attention to warning labels. By contrast, more visible warning labels increase such consumer care, which then has a positive “vigilance effect” on producer care. Information campaigns educating consumers about product risks generate a similar vigilance effect. This happens because consumers view producer care and consumer care levels as strategic substitutes, while the firm views them as strategic complements. We argue that when a public policy is chosen, the endogeneity of consumer attention to warnings is not to be overlooked.

This paper compares the equilibrium outcomes in search markets with and without referrals. Although it seems clear that consumers would benefit from referrals, it is not at all clear whether firms would unilaterally provide information about competing offers since such information could encourage consumers to purchase the product elsewhere. In a model of a horizontally differentiated product market with sequential consumer search, we show that valuable referrals can arise in the equilibrium: a firm will give referrals to consumers whose ideal product is sufficiently far away from the firm's offering. We allow firms to price-discriminate among consumers, and consumers to misrepresent their tastes. We found that the equilibrium profits tend to be higher in markets with referrals than in markets without. Consumers tend to be better off in the presence of referrals when search costs are not too low, and under a certain parameter range, referrals lead to a Pareto improvement.

In many industries, firms reward their customers for making referrals. We analyze a monopoly’s optimal policy mix of price, advertising intensity, and referral fee when buyers choose to what extent to refer other consumers to the firm. When the referral fee can be optimally set by the firm, it will charge the standard monopoly price. The firm always advertises less when it uses referrals. We extend the analysis to the case where consumers can target their referrals. In particular, we show that referral targeting could be detrimental for consumers in a low-valuation group.

We compare equilibria in search markets with and without referrals.

We show that referrals can arise in horizontally differentiated product markets.

The equilibrium profits tend to be higher in markets with referrals.

Consumers tend to be better off under referrals when search costs are not too low.

Referrals can lead to a Pareto improvement.

This paper compares the equilibrium outcomes in search markets with and without referrals. Although it seems clear that consumers would benefit from referrals, it is not at all clear whether firms would unilaterally provide information about competing offers since such information could encourage consumers to purchase the product elsewhere. In a model of a horizontally differentiated product market with sequential consumer search, we show that valuable referrals can arise in the equilibrium: a firm will give referrals to consumers whose ideal product is sufficiently far away from the firm's offering. We allow firms to price-discriminate among consumers, and consumers to misrepresent their tastes. We found that the equilibrium profits tend to be higher in markets with referrals than in markets without. Consumers tend to be better off in the presence of referrals when search costs are not too low, and under a certain parameter range, referrals lead to a Pareto improvement.

I present an ordered-search model that, in contrast with random-search models, yields an intuitively appealing equilibrium in which there is price dispersion, prices and profits decline in the order of search and consumers with lower search costs search longer and obtain better deals. These features of the search equilibrium hold regardless of whether consumers are informed of prices prior to searching.

This paper provides evidence of the incidence and variety of low‐price guarantees (promises to match or beat a rival’s price) using data obtained from newspaper advertisements in 37 metropolitan areas in the United States. We have a total of 515 low‐price guarantees in our sample. We document their features, and we infer firms' motives and effects from these features. The evidence suggests that the majority of low‐price guarantees are not consistent with their use as a facilitating device because they tend to apply only to rival firms’ advertised prices or they are associated with high hassle costs. The evidence also suggests that price‐beating and price‐matching guarantees differ significantly in their features. The former are associated with higher hassle costs, apply disproportionately to rival firms’ advertised prices, and are more likely to allow postsale search than are price‐matching guarantees.