Price Discrimination vs Predatory Pricing
Price Discrimination and Predatory Pricing are related concepts in AP Economics that students often mix up. Price discrimination is the practice of charging different prices to different consumers for the same product based on their willingness to pay. Predatory pricing is cutting price below cost to drive rivals out of a market, with the plan of raising price once the competition is gone. Here is how they compare side by side.
To engage in price discrimination, a firm must have market power, be able to identify different consumer groups, and prevent resale between groups. It increases profits by capturing more consumer surplus.
Predatory pricing runs in two stages. In the sacrifice stage the firm sells below its own cost and absorbs losses that a rival with shallower pockets cannot match; in the recoupment stage, once the rival exits, it raises price and earns back more than it lost. The whole plan collapses without barriers to entry, because a high post-exit price simply invites a fresh competitor and the predator never recovers the money. That is why economists have long argued predation is rarer than it looks, and why courts usually demand proof of both below-cost pricing and a realistic path to recoupment. Aggressive discounting by a firm that genuinely has lower costs is not predation; it is the competition the law exists to protect.
Price Discrimination vs Predatory Pricing: Different Prices or Prices Below Cost
| Price Discrimination | Predatory Pricing | |
|---|---|---|
| What varies | The price from one buyer to another, for the same good | The price over time, for every buyer at once |
| Price compared with cost | Every price stays above the cost of serving one more buyer | The price is put below cost deliberately |
| Goal | Collect more of what each buyer was willing to pay | Force a rival out, then charge more |
| Effect on how much is sold | Usually rises, because low value buyers get served too | Rises briefly, then falls once the rival is gone |
| Effect on profit right now | Higher than any single price would give | Lower on purpose, and normally negative |
| What it requires | A way to sort buyers and stop them reselling | Deeper reserves than the rival and a way to earn the losses back |
| Result for buyers as a group | Mixed, since some pay more and others get served at all | Good for a while, then worse than before |
Charging two prices can raise output; charging one low price to everyone can destroy it
Take an illustrative venue where serving one more person costs 2 dollars. One hundred adults will pay up to 14 dollars, and 120 students will pay up to 8 dollars. A single price of 14 dollars sells 100 tickets, bringing in 1,400 dollars against 200 dollars of cost, or 1,200 dollars. A single price of 8 dollars sells all 220 tickets, bringing in 1,760 dollars against 440 dollars of cost, or 1,320 dollars. Now charge adults 14 dollars and students 8 dollars. Revenue is 1,400 plus 960, or 2,360 dollars, against the same 440 dollars of cost, leaving 1,920 dollars. Two things happened together: the venue did better than under either single price, and 220 people got in instead of 100. Every price charged was above the 2 dollar cost of one more admission. Predatory pricing looks nothing like that. It would mean posting 1 dollar to everybody, a dollar below the cost of serving them, and losing 220 dollars a night on purpose in the hope that a nearby venue closes. One strategy makes money by serving more people. The other loses money in order to serve fewer later.
The legal line is drawn at cost, not at fairness
Students and adults paying different amounts strikes many people as unfair, and it is almost always lawful. Airlines, cinemas, software vendors and universities all do it openly. The reason is that no rival is being excluded and no unit is being sold at a loss; the seller is simply capturing more of what each buyer was already willing to pay. Where law does step in is narrower. An amendment to the /glossary/clayton-act restricts a seller from charging competing business customers different prices for goods of the same grade and quality where the effect may be to lessen competition, which is aimed at wholesale buyers being disadvantaged against each other rather than at consumer discounts. Predation is judged by a different question entirely: was the price below an appropriate measure of the seller's own cost, and could the seller have expected to recover the losses once the rival left. Answering yes to both is rare. Keep the two tests separate in an exam answer. Ask who pays what, and you are describing discrimination. Ask whether the price clears cost, and you are testing for predation.
Frequently asked questions
Is price discrimination the same as predatory pricing?
No, price discrimination charges different buyers different prices for the same product while keeping every price above the cost of serving one more unit, and predatory pricing charges everyone a single price that sits below cost in order to force a rival out. Discrimination is profitable immediately, and predation is deliberately unprofitable in the hope of higher prices later. The two also differ in target, since one is aimed at buyers and the other at a competitor.
Is price discrimination illegal?
Charging consumers different prices, such as student rates or off peak fares, is generally lawful in the United States. The restriction that exists applies mainly to a seller giving competing business customers different prices for goods of the same grade and quality where competition between those buyers may be harmed. Discrimination becomes an antitrust problem only when it is used to exclude a rival rather than to sort buyers.
Does price discrimination always hurt consumers?
No, it usually helps some buyers and hurts others, because the buyers who would pay a lot pay more while the ones who would pay little get an offer they would otherwise never see. Total output frequently rises, since the seller can serve low value customers without cutting the price it charges everyone else. The buyers who lose are the ones the seller identifies as willing to pay the most.
Live Monopoly graph. Drag the curves, or open the full version.
Get AP Econ exam tips in your inbox
Occasional emails with study tips, new interactive graphs, and exam-season reminders. Free, no spam.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. Read our privacy policy.
Keep track of what you have studied
A free EconLearn account adds progress tracking, your quiz history, and achievements. Studying here is free either way, and there is nothing to pay for as a student.
Create a free accountAlready have one? Sign in
Last updated