Conceptualization of a Digital Platform: Market or Business? | Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ekonomika – Tomsk State University Journal of Economics. 2019. № 47. DOI: 10.17223/19988648/47/4

Conceptualization of a Digital Platform: Market or Business?

The reported study was funded by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, Project No. 19010-00352: Scenarios of Overcoming the Consumer Digitalization Resistance on the Digital Platforms Market. In the article, digital platforms are described as a new market mechanism (multi-sided markets). Digital platforms are defined in terms of technical, sociotechnical and economic organizational approaches. They are distinguished from nondigital platforms. The different terms for the phenomenon is analyzed (“two-sided platforms”, “two-sided strategies”). The condition for the functioning of the digital platform as an organizational mechanism is described, namely, as a combination of components: direct interaction between the sides, network effects, the presence of a mediator, specific investments of the sides on the platform. It is revealed that the platform internalizes indirect network effects, but for end users they remain external. The platforms are analyzed as transactional and non-transactional markets with external effects of membership and external effects of use. It is postulated that there is a need to determine the borders of the digital platform, to distinguish it from other socioeconomic relations. The difficulty of separating the horizontal and vertical borders of the platform is shown. The difference is described between the phenomenon and related concepts: intermediary markets, a market for complementary goods, a middleman, a product platform, digital infrastructures. The existing functional classifications of platforms are analyzed; a new classification is proposed and substantiated to reflect the specificity of B2C relationships on similar value chains, as well as the characteristics of resistance to digitalization on the digital platform markets. Business schemes in platform ecosystems are studied, and the reasons for the complexity of their description and classification at the moment are shown. The classification of business schemes based on pricing forms is given. The principle of non-neutrality of the price structure as an essential feature of all business schemes of digital platforms is derived through the level and structure of price. Freemium price strategy on the digital platform market is justified. It is shown that price discrimination of the sides is unavoidable, including under the influence of antitrust authorities, since the parties differ in their elasticity of demand for network effects and are more interested in having network effects than in obtaining a total market surplus. The features of pricing mechanisms for transactional and non-transactional digital platforms are determined. Business schemes and features of value chains are described on the suggested classification of digital platforms. The services underlying the value chains on digital platforms are classified, and their mutual significance is highlighted. The conclusion about the possibilities and threats of digital platforms as a new driver of economic development is made.

Download file
Counter downloads: 180

Keywords

цифровая платформа, цифровизация, бизнес-схемы, многосторонний рынок, типология цифровых платформ, цифровые инфраструктуры, digital platform, digitalization, business schemes, multi-sided market, typology of digital platforms, digital infrastructures

Authors

NameOrganizationE-mail
Ryzhkova Marina V.Tomsk State Universitymarybox@mail.tsu.ru
Всего: 1

References

Gawer A. Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework // Research policy. 2014. Vol. 43, № 7. Р. 1239-1249.
Reuver M. de, Sorensen C., Basole R.C. The digital platform: a research agenda // Journal of Information Technology. 2018. Vol. 33, № 2. Р. 124-135.
Eaton B., Elaluf-Calderwood S., Sorensen C., Yoo Y. Distributed tuning of boundary resources: the case of Apple's iOS service system // MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems. 2015. Vol. 39, is. 1. P. 217-243.
Boudreau K.J. Let a thousand flowers bloom? An early look at large numbers of software app developers and patterns of innovation // Organization Science. 2012. Vol. 23, is. 5. Р. 1409-1427.
Tiwana A. Konsynski B. Bush A.A. Platform evolution: coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics (research commentary) // Information Systems Research. 2010. Vol. 21, is. 4. P. 675-687.
Tilson D. Sorensen C. Lyytinen K. Change and control paradoxes in mobile infrastructure innovation: the Android and iOS mobile operating systems cases // 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, 2012. Р. 1324-1333.
Ghazawneh A. Henfridsson O. A paradigmatic analysis of digital application marketplaces // Journal of Information Technology. 2015. Vol. 30, is. 3. P. 198-208.
Tiwana A. Konsynski B. Complementarities between organizational IT architecture and governance structure // Information Systems Research. 2010. Vol. 21, is. 2. P. 288-304.
Ghazawneh A. Henfridsson O. Balancing platform control and external contribution in third party development: the boundary resources model // Information systems journal. 2013. Vol. 23, is. 2. P. 173-192.
Осипов Ю.М., Юдина Т.Н., Гелисханов И.З. Цифровая платформа как институт эпохи технологического прорыва // Экономические стратегии. 2018. № 5 (155). С. 22-29.
Rochet J.C., Tirole J. Platform competition in two-sided markets // Journal of the European economic association. 2003. Vol. 1, № 4. Р. 990-1029.
Armstrong M. Competition in two sided markets // The RAND Journal of Economics. 2006. Vol. 37, is. 3. P. 668-691.
Wright J. One-sided logic in two-sided markets // Review of Network Economics. 2004. Vol. 3, is. 1.
Gawer A., CusumanoM.A. Platform leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco drive industry innovation. Boston, MA : Harvard Business School Press, 2002. Vol. 5. P. 29-30.
Evans D.S. Some empirical aspects of multi-sided platform industries // Review of Network Economics. 2003. Vol. 2, is. 3.
Evans D.S., Schmalensee R. The antitrust analysis of multi-sided platform businesses // National Bureau of Economic Research. 2013. № w18783.
Eisenmann T., Parker G., Van Alstyne M. W. Strategies for two-sided markets // Harvard business review. 2006. Vol. 84, is. 10. 12 p.
Martens B. An economic policy perspective on online platforms // Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Digital Economy Working Paper. 2016. Vol. 5.
Stackelberg H. von. Marktform und Gleichgewicht. Wien ; Berlin. 1934. S. 235.
Яблонский С.А. Многосторонние платформ^! и рынки: основн^іе подходах, концепции и практики // Российский журнал менеджмента. 2013. № 4. С. 57-78.
Hagiu A., Wright J. Multi-sided platforms // International Journal of Industrial Organization. 2015. Vol. 43. P. 162-174.
McCabe M.J., Snyder C.M. Open access as a crude solution to a hold-up problem in the two-sided market for academic journals // The Journal of Industrial Economics. 2018. Vol. 66, is. 2. P. 301-349.
Filistrucchi L., Geradin D., Van Damme E., Affeldt P. Market definition in two-sided markets: Theory and practice // Journal of Competition Law & Economics. 2014. Vol. 10, № 2. P. 293-339.
Basole R.C., Russell M.G., Huhtamaki J., Rubens N., Still K., Park H. Understanding business ecosystem dynamics: A data-driven approach // ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems (TMIS). 2015. Vol. 6, is. 2.
Basole R.C., Park H., Barnett B.C. Coopetition and convergence in the ICT ecosystem // Telecommunications Policy. 2015. Vol. 39, is. 7. P. 537-552.
Hagiu A. Strategic decisions for multisided platforms // MIT Sloan Management Review. 2014. Vol. 55, is. 2. P. 71-80.
Bygstad B. Generative innovation: a comparison of lightweight and heavyweight IT // Journal of Information Technology. 2017. Vol. 32, № 2. Р. 180-193.
Evans P.C., Gawer A. The rise of the platform enterprise. A global survey // The Center for Global Enterprise. 2016. № 1. 28 p. URL: https://www.thecge.net/app/uploads/ 2016/01/PDF-WEB-Platform-Survey 01 12.pdf.
Hagel J. The power of platforms // Business ecosystems come of age. 2015. P. 79-89.
Цифровые платформы. Подходах к определению и типизации: Презентация Ростелеком / АНО «ЦИФРОВАЯ ЭКОНОМИКА». URL: https://files.data-economy.ru/digital platforms.pdf
Гелисханов И.З., Юдина Т.Н., Бабкин А.В. Цифровые платформы в экономике: сущность, модели, тенденции развития // Научно-технические ведомости СПбГПУ. Экономические науки. 2018. Т. 11, № 6. С. 22-36. URL: https://economy.spbstu.ru/ userfiles/files/articles/2018/6/02 Gelishanov-Yudina-Babkin.pdf
Паркер Дж., Альстин М. ван, ЧауДари С. Революция платформ. Как сетевые рынки меняют экономику - и как заставить их работать на вас. М. : Манн, Иванов и Фербер, 2017. 304 с.
Tiwana A. Platform ecosystems: Aligning architecture, governance, and strategy. Newnes, 2013. 302 p.
Lemon K.N., Verhoef P.C. Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey // Journal of marketing. 2016. Vol. 80, is. 6. P. 69-96.
Rochet J.C., Tirole J. Two-sided markets: a progress report // The RAND journal of economics. 2006. Vol. 37, is. 3. P. 645-667.
Портер М. Конкурентное преимущество: Как достичь высокого результата и обеспечить его устойчивость. М. : Альпина Диджитал, 1985.
Vermesan O., Friess P., Guillemin P., Serrano M. et al. IoT digital value chain connecting research, innovation and deployment // Digitising the Industry Internet of Things Connecting the Physical, Digital and Virtual Worlds. 2016. Vol. 49. P. 15-129.
Stone B. The everything store: Jeff Bezos and the age of Amazon. Random House, 2013. 464 р.
Pasquale F. The black box society. Harvard University Press, 2015. 311 р.
 Conceptualization of a Digital Platform: Market or Business? | Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ekonomika – Tomsk State University Journal of Economics. 2019. № 47. DOI: 10.17223/19988648/47/4

Conceptualization of a Digital Platform: Market or Business? | Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ekonomika – Tomsk State University Journal of Economics. 2019. № 47. DOI: 10.17223/19988648/47/4

Download full-text version
Counter downloads: 977