{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024832855778414518, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.275449101796407, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Two-Sidedness, Product Complementarity and the Platform-Specific Nature of Externalities: A Comment on Filistrucchi

In his article “Two-Sided Vs. Complementary Products” Filistrucchi explains in what respect two-sided platforms are different from firms producing complementary products, in spite of the similarity in pricing strategies. For him, the distinguishing feature of two-sided platforms is the existence of two distinct customer groups and externalities between those groups that remain uncompensated. Pricing practices by two-sided platforms internalize such externalities. In my view, it is not so much the internalization of externalities that explains pricing practices, but rather the platform-specific nature of the externalities – that is, that more customers on one side of a platform only benefit customers on the other side of the same platform, not those on the other side of other platforms. I believe that there is no essential difference with firms producing firm-specific complements. In this article I try to explain why.