The price of competitiveness in competitive pricing

This study examines how pricing decisions might be improved. We test the hypothesis that managers have a tendency to overcompete by comparing the performance of managers with the performance of computerized strategies in a Prisoner's Dilemma pricing experiment. We find that the subjects in our study obtain lower profits than marched computer strategies. The subjects appear To value relative performance against competitors, even when they are explicitly instructed to maximize profits and are compensated based on profits. The implication for managers is that pricing to maximize profits may require tolerating the strong performance of competitors, even to the point of accepting a lower profit than some or all the competitors. If competitiveness means an adversarial, "zero-sum game" view of one 4 competitors, then the price of competitiveness in competitive markets such as those in our experiment may be lower profits. Being less competitive may be more profitable.