More Goods Means More Commitment

Mark Whitmeyer

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.18581

More Goods Means More Commitment

Mark Whitmeyer

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A seller without commitment to future offers interacts with a buyer over time. There are many goods for sale, with the buyer's value for a bundle the sum of each bundled good's value. Each date, the seller jointly announces a menu of subsets of the remaining inventory and current prices, and the buyer may purchase one of the offered subsets or wait. In the next period, the seller may again offer any menu of the remaining goods. Neither buyer nor seller can commit to future behavior. I show that as players become maximally patient, if scope increases sufficiently fast compared to patience, revenue per good converges to expected value per good and buyer utility per good converges to zero, in any equilibrium. But if patience instead grows sufficiently fast compared to scope, seller revenue per good converges to the lowest possible value and the buyer captures all remaining surplus, in any equilibrium.

Explore related subjects

econ.TH

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Mark Whitmeyer. 2026-10-13. More Goods Means More Commitment. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.18581

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Self-ordered choice models

Consider an analyst who, for each menu of alternatives, observes a probability distribution over choices, reflecting heterogeneity in the population's choices. The analyst uses a choice model\textendash consisting of deterministic \textit{choice types} \textendash to explain the data, in the sense that mixtures over the admissible types reproduce the observed choice probabilities. A central difficulty is that such representations are typically non-unique. We introduce self-orderedness, a criterion ensuring that every probabilistic choice pattern the analyst can explain admits a unique and ordered representation. We show that self-ordered models are exactly those whose choice types form a \textit{lattice}. This equivalence provides a precise recipe to restrict or extend any choice model for unique ordered representation. Following this recipe, we identify the choice types that are essential for the unique ordered representation of random utility functions. This extension adds economically meaningful non-rational behaviors linked to choice overload and enables identification of the underlying order.

econ.TH↗

arXiv2026

Screening with Advertisements

We investigate a seller's revenue-maximizing mechanism in a setting where a desirable good is sold together with an undesirable bad (e.g., advertisements) that generates third-party revenue. The buyer's private information is two-dimensional: valuation for the good and willingness to pay to avoid the bad. Building on the duality framework of Daskalakis, Deckelbaum, and Tzamos (2017), whose results extend to our setting, we formulate the seller's problem using a transformed measure $μ$ that depends on the third-party payment $k$. We provide a near-characterization for optimality of three pricing mechanisms commonly used in practice -- the Good-Only, Ad-Tiered, and Single-Bundle Posted Price -- and introduce a new class of tractable, interpretable two-dimensional orthant conditions on $μ$ for sufficiency. Economically, $k$ yields a clean comparative static: low $k$ excludes the bad, intermediate $k$ separates ad-tolerant and ad-averse buyers, and high $k$ bundles ads for all types.

econ.TH↗

arXiv2026

Monotone Allocations without Single-Crossing: When to Bunch and When to Jump

We study one-dimensional screening when the Spence-Mirrlees condition fails along a monotone dividing curve, on which all types value marginal output equally. A single ratio, marginal distortion over marginal rent, governs the problem. When the relaxed solution stays in the positive region, non-decreasing optima in the positive single-crossing region are continuous if the ratio increases in the decision. When it crosses a flat curve and marginal rents are separable, every continuous contract is improved by a jump. When it crosses a strictly monotone curve, a contract that pools and jumps continues along the mirror of the pool if the ratio does not increase along it. Optimality among all implementable allocations, deterministic or random, is proved by a measure on the binding constraints whose weights are the same ratio; with constant curvatures and no crossing, it is also necessary. As applications, we solve problems of procurement and nonlinear pricing.

econ.TH↗