We investigate the conventional wisdom that competition among interested parties attempting to influence a decision maker by providing verifiable information brings out all the relevant information. We find that, if the decision maker is strategically sophisticated and well informed about the relevant variables and about the preferences of the interested party or parties, competition may be unnecessary; while if the decision maker is unsophisticated or not well informed, competition is not generally sufficient. However, if the interested parties’ interests are sufficiently opposed, or if the decision maker is seeking to advance the parties’ decision maker’s need for prior knowledge about the relevant variables and for strategic sophistication. In other settings, only the combination of competition among information providers and a sophisticated skepticism is sufficient to allow defective decision making.
JEL Classification: 026, 612, 613
Keywords: Law and economics, regulation, persuasion games, revelation games, lobbying, strategic information transmission, adversary system
We present a signalling model, based on ideas of Phillip Nelson, in which both the introductory price and the level of directly “uninformative” advertising or other dissipative marketing expenditures are choice variables and may be used as signals for the initially unobservable quality of a newly introduced experience good. Repeat purchases play a crucial role in our model.