Treating customers like markets: Tacit collusion and mutual forbearance in B2B oligopolies
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.24(1).2026.23
-
Article InfoVolume 24 2026, Issue #1, pp. 332-351
- 21 Views
-
1 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Type of the article: Research Article
Abstract
In business-to-business contract markets, oligopolistic suppliers often exhibit stable pricing patterns and low customer switching rates that cannot be explained by explicit coordination. This paper investigates how market characteristics enable tacit collusion through customer-specific mutual forbearance, where competitors implicitly treat individual customers as separate market spheres, each served through individualized contracts.
We use a controlled laboratory experiment based on a dynamic Bertrand oligopoly with three suppliers and ten distinct customers across 17 trading periods. The design systematically varies two conditions: whether suppliers receive ex-post information on competitors’ transaction prices and customer relationships, and whether they can set individualized prices per customer. Customer decisions are simulated algorithmically to focus on supplier strategies and reduce variance. The experiment thus isolates the combined effect of price differentiation and information transparency on pricing under switching costs.
Our results demonstrate that when ex-post information and price differentiation coincide, suppliers develop implicit “customer ownership” understandings without explicit communication. We show that this combination significantly reduces customer-supplier switching and leads to higher offer and transaction prices compared to markets where either factor is absent. Additionally, suppliers engage in less aggressive poaching behavior when both information transparency and pricing flexibility are present.
These results confirm that information transparency enables suppliers to monitor customer boundaries and credibly threaten retaliation, while customer-specific pricing provides the mechanism for targeted punishment of boundary violations. Further, the findings provide managers in B2B sectors with actionable tools for strategic coordination.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)L11, L13, D43, C70
-
References58
-
Tables7
-
Figures1
-
- Figure 1. Descriptive statistics – Distribution of profits in game half 2 by treatment (in % of markets)
-
- Table 1. Overview of treatments
- Table 2. Descriptive statistics – (all) Supplier switches (in % of transactions)
- Table 3. Descriptive statistics – Offer prices (in currency units)
- Table 4. Descriptive statistics – Transaction prices (in currency units)
- Table 5. Descriptive statistics – “Poaching” (in % of transactions)
- Table 6. Regression analysis – Random-effects models
- Table 7. Regression analysis – Fixed effects models/results of the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test
-
- Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (2004). Business market management: Understanding, creating, and delivering value (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
- Areeda, P., & Turner, D. (1979). Conglomerate mergers: Extended interdependence and effects on interindustry competition as grounds for condemnation. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 127(4), 1082-1103.
- Bakos, Y. (1998). The emerging role of electronic marketplaces on the Internet. Communications of the ACM, 41(8), 35-42.
- Bernheim, B. D., & Whinston, M. D. (1990). Multimarket contact and collusive behavior. The RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1), 1-26.
- Bigoni, M., Potters, J., & Spagnolo, G. (2019). Frequency of interaction, communication and collusion: An experiment. Economic Theory, 68(4), 827-844.
- Boeker, W., Goodstein, J., Stephan, J., & Murmann, J. P. (1997). Competition in a multimarket environment: The case of market exit. Organization Science, 8(2), 126-142.
- Brokešová, Z., Deck, C., & Peliova, J. (2014). Experimenting with purchase history based price discrimination. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 37, 229-237.
- Brown-Kruse, J. L. (1991). Contestability in the presence of an alternate market: An experimental examination. The RAND Journal of Economics, 22(1), 136-147.
- Brown-Kruse, J., Rassenti, S., Reynolds, S. S., & Smith, V. L. (1994). Bertrand-Edgeworth competition in experimental markets. Econometrica, 62(2), 343-371.
- Buchheit, S., & Feltovich, N. (2011). Experimental evidence of a sunk-cost paradox: A study of pricing behavior in Bertrand-Edgeworth duopoly. International Economic Review, 52(2), 317-347.
- Carlton, D. W., & Perloff, J. M. (2015). Modern industrial organization (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
- Chen, Y. (1997). Paying customers to switch. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 6(4), 877-897.
- Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (1999). Committee on Publication Ethics: the COPE Report 1999. Guidelines on good publication practice (pp. 43-47). London: BMJ Books.
- Corts, K. S. (1998). Third-degree price discrimination in oligopoly: All-out competition and strategic commitment. The Rand Journal of Economics, 29(2), 306-323.
- Dekeyser, S., Gaeremynck, A., Knechel, W. R., & Willekens, M. (2021). Multimarket contact and mutual forbearance in audit markets. Journal of Accounting Research, 59(5), 1651-1688.
- Dolbear, F. T., Lave, L. B., Bowman, G., Lieberman, A., Prescott, E., Rueter, F., & Sherman, R. (1968). Collusion in oligopoly: An experiment on the effect of numbers and information. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 82(2), 240-259.
- Durham, Y., McCabe, K., Olson, M. A., Rassenti, S., & Smith, V. (2004). Oligopoly competition in fixed cost environments. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22(2), 147-162.
- Edwards, C. D. (1955). Conglomerate bigness as a source of power. In G. J. Stigler (Ed.), Business concentration and price policy (pp. 331-359). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Feinberg, R. M. (1984). Mutual forbearance as an extension of oligopoly theory. Journal of Economics and Business, 36(2), 243-249.
- Feinberg, R. M., & Sherman, R. (1988). Mutual forbearance under experimental conditions. Southern Economic Journal, 54(4), 985-993.
- Feinberg, R., & Snyder, C. (2002). Collusion with secret price cuts: An experimental investigation. Economics Bulletin, 3(6), 1-11.
- Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171-178.
- Fonseca, M. A., & Normann, H.-T. (2008). Mergers, asymmetries and collusion: Experimental evidence. The Economic Journal, 118(527), 387-400.
- Fouraker, L. E., & Siegel, S. (1963). Bargaining behavior. New York: McGraw Hill.
- Fourberg, N. (2023). Let’s lock them in: Collusion under consumer switching costs. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 91, 103018.
- Fudenberg, D., & Tirole, J. (2000). Customer poaching and brand switching. The Rand Journal of Economics, 31(4), 634-657.
- Fudenberg, D., & Villas-Boas, J.M. (2006). Behavior-based price discrimination and customer recognition. In T. Hendershott (Ed.), Handbook on economics and information systems (vol. 1, pp. 377-436). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
- Gehrig, T.P., & Stenbacka, R. (2005). Price discrimination, competition and antitrust. In M. Bergman (Ed.), The pros and cons of price discrimination (pp. 131-160). Stockholm: Swedish Competition Authority (Konkurrensverket).
- Gilbert, R. J., & Lieberman, M. (1987). Investment and coordination in oligopolistic industries. The RAND Journal of Economics, 18(1), 17-33.
- Green, E. J., & Porter, R. H. (1984). Noncooperative collusion under imperfect price information. Econometrica, 52(1), 87-100.
- Greiner, B. (2004). An online recruitment system for economic experiments. In K. Kremer & V. Macho (Eds.), Forschung und Wissenschaftliches Rechnen 2003, GWDG-Bericht 63 (pp. 79-93). Göttingen: Gesellschaft für wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung.
- Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46(6), 1251-1271.
- Hay, G. A., & Kelley, D. (1974). An empirical survey of price fixing conspiracies. The Journal of Law and Economics, 17(1), 13-38.
- Holcomb, J. H., & Nelson, P. S. (1997). The role of monitoring in duopoly market outcomes. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 26(1), 79-93.
- Horstmann, N., & Kraemer, J. (2013). Price discrimination or uniform pricing: Which colludes more? Economic Letters, 120(3), 379-383.
- Huck, S., Normann, H. T., & Oechssler, J. (2000). Does information about competitors’ actions increase or decrease competition in experimental oligopoly markets? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 18(1), 39-57.
- Huck, S., Normann, H. T., & Oechssler, J. (2004). Two are few and four are many: Number effects in experimental oligopolies. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 53(4), 435-446.
- Karnani, A., & Wernerfelt, B. (1985). Multiple point competition. Strategic Management Journal, 6(1), 87-96.
- Klemperer, P. (1995). Competition when consumers have switching costs: An overview with applications to industrial organization, macroeconomics, and international trade. The Review of Economic Studies, 62(4), 515-539.
- Leibbrandt, A. (2020). Behavioral constraints on price discrimination: Experimental evidence on pricing and customer antagonism. European Economic Review, 121, Article 103303.
- Mann, H. B., & Whitney, D. R. (1947). On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. The Annals of mathematical Statistics, 18(1), 50-60.
- Nawaz, R. R., & Wagner, R. (2025). Disclosing transparency: A review of B2B marketing and supply chain research. Industrial Marketing Management, 124, 73-94.
- Orzen, H., & Sefton, M. (2008). An experiment on spatial price competition. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 26(3), 716-729.
- Pazgal, A., & Soberman, D. (2008). Behavior-based discrimination: Is it a winning play, and if so, when? Marketing Science, 27(6), 977-994.
- Petersen, M. A. (2009). Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: Comparing approaches. The Review of Financial Studies, 22(1), 435-480.
- Phillips, O. R., & Mason, C. F. (1992). Mutual forbearance in experimental conglomerate markets. The Rand Journal of Economics, 23(3), 395-414.
- Satterthwaite, F. E. (1946). An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. Biometrics Bulletin, 2(6), 110-114.
- Schendera, C. F. G. (2008). Regressionsanalyse mit SPSS [Regression analysis with SPSS] (1st ed). Berlin: De Gruyter Oldenbourg. (In German).
- Schmalensee, R., & Willig, R. D. (Eds.). (1989). Handbook of industrial organization (Vols. 1 & 2). Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier.
- Stigler, G. J. (1964). A theory of oligopoly. Journal of Political Economy, 72(1), 44-61.
- Stoecker, R. (1980). Experimentelle Untersuchung des Entscheidungsverhaltens im Bertrand-Oligopol [Experimental investigation of decision behavior in a Betrand oligopoly]. PUB, Publikationen an der Universität Bielefeld. (In German).
- Thisse, J.-F., & Vives, X. (1988). On the strategic choice of spatial price policy. The American Economic Review, 78(1), 122-137.
- Umezawa, M. (2022). Behavior-based price discrimination in a horizontally and vertically differentiated duopoly with switching costs. Information Economics and Policy, 61, Article 101004.
- Umezawa, M., & Yamakawa, S. (2025). The impact of switching costs on behavior-based price discrimination with multiple consumer types. Journal of Economics, 145(2), 147-187.
- Vega-Redondo, F. (1997). The evolution of Walrasian behavior. Econometrica, 65(2), 375-384.
- Welch, B. L. (1951). On the comparison of several mean values: An alternative approach. Biometrika, 38(3/4), 330-336.
- Wilcoxon, F. (1945). Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin, 1(6), 80-83.
- Wooldridge, J. M. (2014). Introduction to econometrics. Boston: Cengage Learning.


