CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 21Digital Platforms and EconomicsSharing Economy and PlatformsDigital Economy and Work Transformation

Innovative Online Platforms: Research Opportunities

Open access
Chen, Ying-Ju, Dai, Tinglong, Korpeoglu, C. Gizem, Körpeoğlu, Ersin, Sahin, Ozge, Tang, Christopher S., Xiao, Shihong·2018·SSRN Electronic Journal
DOI 10.2139/ssrn.3098921
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Economic growth in many countries is increasingly driven by successful startups that operate as online platforms. These success stories have motivated us to define and classify various online platforms according to their business models. This study discusses strategic and operational issues arising from five types of online platforms (resource sharing, matching, crowdsourcing, review, and crowdfunding) and presents some research opportunities for operations management scholars to explore.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2139/ssrn.3098921

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Liquidity ensures transaction execution, and data and analytics (including peer-review systems) create value by decreasing information asymmetries between peer groups and reducing search costs.

    “Liquidity ensures transaction execution, and data and analytics (including peer-review systems) create value by decreasing information asymmetries between the peer groups and reducing search costs”

    From Platforms in the peer-to-peer sharing economy (2019) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2018

    Section 3.1 (p. 5) describes platform value in terms of reducing information asymmetries between user groups and the costs of searching and matching. Section 4.1 (p. 10) says bilateral ratings can foster trust and reduce search and matching frictions, while Section 4.3 (p. 17) discusses data-analytics tools. The cited paper does not establish that liquidity ensures transaction execution. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Both drivers and users can sign up with several platforms and switch on a case-by-case basis, depending on a platform's surge pricing strategies, temporary promotions, and quality matches.

    “For example, both drivers and users can sign up with several platforms and switch on a case-by-case basis, depending on a platform's surge pricing strategies, the availability of temporary promotions, and quality matches (Chen et al., 2018).”

    From Platforms in the peer-to-peer sharing economy (2019) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2018

    Section 4.1 (p. 12) says drivers may multi-home and customers face low switching costs, choosing whichever service meets their needs sooner. It also discusses surge pricing and driver bonuses, but does not say that drivers and users switch case by case based on surge prices, temporary promotions, or match quality. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The platform specifies the "rules of engagement," including information to be provided on listings, pricing schedules, search criteria and ratings, and stakeholder privacy protection and data security.

    “The platform specifies the “rules of engagement,” including the information to be provided on listings, pricing schedules, search criteria and ratings for uses to search, interact and transact (Chen et al., 2018), and stakeholder privacy protection and data security”

    From Platforms in the peer-to-peer sharing economy (2019) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2018

  • Such strategies increase switching costs and provide incentives for providers and users to become more loyal to a platform.

    “Such strategies increase switching costs and provide incentives for providers and users to become more loyal to a platform (Chen et al., 2018).”

    From Platforms in the peer-to-peer sharing economy (2019) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2018

  • Tools to build loyalty include evangelizing, milestoning, badging and documenting, and incentive systems for service providers to increase their activity on the platform.

    “Potential responses are tools to build loyalty include evangelizing, milestoning, badging and documenting (Perren and Kozinets, 2018), and incentive systems for service providers to increase their activity on the platform (Chen et al., 2018).”

    From Platforms in the peer-to-peer sharing economy (2019) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2018

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. Ales, L., Cho, S.H., Körpeoğlu, E. 2017a. Innovation and Crowdsourcing Contests. Hu, M., eds., Sharing Economy: Making Supply Meet Demand , Springer Series in Supply Chain Management. To Appear.
  2. Ayeh, J. K., Au, N., Law, R. 2013. Do We Believe in Tripadvisor? Journal of Travel Research . 52(4) 437-453.
  3. Bagnoli, M., L. Bart. 1989. Provision of public goods: Fully implementing the core through private contributions. Review of Economic Studies 56(4) 583-601.
  4. Becker, G. S. 1973. A Theory of Marriage: Part I. Journal of Political Economy. 81(4) 813-846.
  5. Belleflamme, P., Peitz, M. 2015. Industrial Organization: Markets and Strategies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK.
  6. Benjaafar, S., Kong, G., Li, X., and Courcoubetis, C., 2018b. Peer-to-Peer Product Sharing: Implications for Ownership, Usage, and Social Welfare in the Sharing Economy. Management Science . https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2970 · DOI
  7. Bergemann, D., Bonatti, A. and Smolin, A., 2018. The Design and Price of Information. American Economic Review , 108(1) 1-48.
  8. Bhide, A. 2018. Skepticism Beats Snopes as an Antidote to Fake News. Wall Street Journal (June 8).
  9. Bolton, G.E., Katok, E., Ockenfels, A. 2005. Bridging the Trust Gap in Electronic Markets: A Strategic Framework for Empirical Study. Applications of Supply Chain Management and e-Commerce Research , Eds. Geunes, J; Akcali, E; Pardalos, PM; Romeijn, HE; Shen, ZJ. Springer Publishers, New York.
  10. Boudreau, K. J., Lakhani, K. R., Menietti, M. 2016. Performance Responses to Competition Across SkillLevels in Rank Order Tournaments: Field Evidence and Implications for Tournament Design. RAND Journal of Economics . 47 140-165.
  11. Burdett, K. and Coles, M.G. 1997. Marriage and Class. Quarterly Journal of Economics . 112(1) 141-168.
  12. Cusumano, M.A. 2011. Platform Wars Come to Social Media. Communications of the ACM . 54(4) 31-33.
  13. Damiano, E., Li, H. 2007. Price Discrimination and Efficient Matching. Economic Theory . 30(2), 243-263.
  14. Filieri, R. 2016. What Makes an Online Consumer Review Trustworthy? Annals of Tourism Research . 48 46-64.
  15. Goldsmith, R.E. Horowitz, D. 2006. Measuring Motivations for Online Opinion Seeking. Journal of Interactive Advertising . 6 2-14.
  16. Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G., Gremler, D.D. 2004. Electronic Word-of-Mouth via Consumer-Opinion Platforms: What Motivates Consumers to Articulate Themselves on the Internet? Journal of Internet Marketing . 18(1) 39-52.
  17. Korula, N., Mirrokni, V., Nazerzadeh, H. 2016. Optimizing Display Advertising Markets: Challenges and Directions. IEEE Internet Computing . 20(1) 28-35.
  18. Luca, M., Zervas, G. 2016. Fake It Till You Make It: Reputation, Competition, and Yelp Review Fraud. Management Science . 62(12) 3412-3427.
  19. Michail, N., Teal, G., Basta, J., Austin, K.J. 2005. Internet information technology and "globalisation" redefining the meaning of information systems. 3rd International Conference on Politics and Information Systems: Technologies and Applications, Proceedings. Eds: Carrasquero, JV; Welsch, F; Oropeza, A; Flueier, T; Callaos, N.
  20. Mollick, E. 2014. The Dynamics of Crowdfunding: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Business Venturing . 29 116.
  21. Stevens, L., J. Emont. 2018. How Sellers Trick Amazon to Boost Sales. Wall Street Journal (July 28).
  22. Strausz, R. 2017. A Theory of Crowdfunding: A Mechanism Design Approach with Demand Uncertainty and Moral Hazard. American Economic Review . 107(6) 1430-1476.
  23. Van Dijck, J. 2013. The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media . Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
  24. Van Alstyne, M.W., Parker, G.G., Choudary, S.P. 2016. 6 Reasons Platforms Fail. Harvard Business Review . March 31, 2016.
  25. Veiga, A., E. G. Weyl, A. White. 2017. Multidimensional Platform Design. American Economic Review 107(5) 191-95.
  26. Wang, Z., Hu, M. 2014. Committed versus Contingent Pricing under Competition. Production and Operations Management , 23(11), 1919-1936.
  27. Wright, J. 2004. One-sided Logic in Two-sided Markets. Review of Network Economics . 3(1) 44-64.
  28. Zhu, F., and Furr, N. 2016. Products to Platforms: Making the Leap. Harvard Business Review . April. 3-8.
  29. Zhu, F., Zhang, M. 2010. Impact of Online Consumer Reviews on Sales: The Moderating Role of Product and Consumer Characteristics. Journal of Marketing . 74(2) 133-148.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, Y.-J., Dai, T., Korpeoglu, C. G., Körpeoğlu, E., Sahin, O., Tang, C. S., & Xiao, S.
Affiliations
  • Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HK)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
  • University College London (GB)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Fudan University (CN)
Corresponding author
Korpeoglu, C. Gizem
ORCID
Venue
SSRN Electronic Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018
ISSN
1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2139/ssrn.3098921
OpenAlex
W3122217021
Cited by
21
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Sharing Economy and Platforms
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Economy and Work Transformation
Keywords
digital platforms, business models, startups, resource sharing platform, matching platforms, crowdsourcing, online review platforms, crowdfunding, operations management, platform strategy, platform classification

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review