Competition

ImperiaBusiness School students pitch to investors at London Tech Week

Lou Lee — Mon, 14 Apr 2025 10:15:24 +0000

ImperiaBusiness School students pitch to investors at London Tech Week

Lou Lee Mon, 14/04/2025 - 10:15

23 October 2026 News

Dr Omar Mir launches ImperiaBusiness School’s Technology Leader Speaker Series with a call to put people at the heart of AI

22 October 2026 News

ImperiaBusiness School’s gender equality commitment recognised with Athena Swan Silver Award

9 October 2026 News

Making clean energy pay off for the communities that host it

18 June 2026

London Tech Week, held from 8-12 June, is the UK’s premier destination for innovation, collaboration and growth in the tech sector. ��’s stand showcased the university’s world-leading research, breakthrough ventures and growing innovation ecosystem through WestTech London, with strong involvement from ImperiaBusiness School alongside ImperiaGlobal, the School of Convergence Science, Lifelong Learning, and wider innovation partners. Together, teams championed how Imperiaworks with businesses, investors and partners to translate scientific discovery into real-world impact.

As part of the week, student founders from the MSc Innovation, Entrepreneurship & Management (IEM) programme presented at the annual IEM Demo Day – a fringe event that brought together early-stage founders, alumni, investors and the wider London start-up ecosystem.

The Demo Day marked the culmination of a year-long programme in which students develop and refine their ventures, pitching live to a panel of judges and audience of industry professionals.

Tanushri Bhuruk, winner of the IEM Demo Day £1,000 cash grant prize, pitched Enso, a mental health app that helps users better understand their emotions through guided journaling and connect with suitable therapists. The app is already live on the App Store with users across five countries.

Tanushri said: “Presenting my startup was a genuine privilege. Enso came from a personal experience, so to stand in front of such a talented group of founders and have it recognised meant a lot. Winning the prize gave me a real push to keep building with even more energy - proof that what we’re building has an impact beyond just us.”

“There was a palpable energy in the room. For those pitching, this was the moment they moved from being students with an idea to becoming true entrepreneurial teams.”

Andrew Humphries

Entrepreneur in Residence and Module Lead for MSc Innovation, Entrepreneurship & Management (IEM)

Throughout London Tech Week, IEM students also engaged directly with investors, founders and partners at the Imperiastand, presenting their ventures and receiving feedback from across the start-up community. For many, it was their first chance to test ideas in a live, high-profile innovation environment.

Reflecting on the experience, Andrew highlighted the importance of communication in early-stage entrepreneurship: “I’m constantly surprised by the power of storytelling and creating both an emotional connection and a commercial rationale with an audience. When something is being judged on just a five-minute pitch, you never quite know who will win – and even if you don’t win on the day, you may meet someone who helps move you towards your goals.”

Students gained valuable insights from engaging with industry experts during the week, with many describing the experience as a key moment in developing their ventures beyond the classroom.

Guglielmo Cimolai, an MSc Artificial Intelligence Applications and Innovation student, said: “For me, the best part was the conversations I had in those three days, surrounded by amazing founders building genuinely hard things. I’m thankful to everyone who stopped by to challenge our thinking.”

Solenn Sandberg, an MSc IEM student who reached the final stages of judging, said: “What made this experience even more special for me is that this is an idea I have carried with me for twelve years. What started as a childhood dream became something I had the opportunity to develop.”

The IEM Demo Day and London Tech Week activities form part of ImperiaBusiness School’s wider experiential learning approach, giving students hands-on opportunities to develop, test and scale ventures in real-world settings.

Andrew described the value of these experiences in helping students transform ideas into real ventures: “This is often when something moves from concept to reality. Talking to potential customers and investors, meeting incubators and accelerators, and stress-testing ideas with experienced voices is what makes the difference.

By embedding student founders within major innovation events like London Tech Week, ImperiaBusiness School continues to strengthen its role in developing entrepreneurial talent and supporting the next generation of start-ups.

Subscribe for research and events from the Business School

Careers

Competition

Education and Learning

Academic area

Management & Entrepreneurship

Off

External

Off

Programme

MSc Innovation, Entrepreneurship & Management

Student founders from ImperiaBusiness School’s MSc Innovation, Entrepreneurship & Management programme showcased their ventures to investors, innovators and industry leaders at one of the UK's leading technology events.

��'s London Tech Week stand at Olympia London

3 minute read

Are healthcare market reforms delivering better outcomes for patients?

Carol Propper — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:14:02 +0000

Are healthcare market reforms delivering better outcomes for patients?

Carol Propper Wed, 15/01/2025 - 12:14

More blogs

2 November 2026 Knowledge

The corporate sustainability actions that reward investors

15 October 2026 Knowledge

Investing in nature: Why markets haven’t caught up yet

7 October 2026 Knowledge

Could working from home strain your relationship?

23 June 2026

Article at a glance:

Over the past 20 years, governments have turned to market reforms and competition to curb costs and raise standards in healthcare.
Patient choice has increased, but more support is needed to help those who are less able to exercise this choice.
Proactive scrutiny of mergers, alongside quality incentives and openness to new providers and modes of care, could ensure integration improves care rather than re-establishing local monopolies.

Healthcare functions differently from other product markets due to the importance of maintaining equity in access to care and quality of care. As a result, government intervention is high and healthcare markets are heavily regulated.

However, the cost of healthcare has steadily risen worldwide. In 2000, the average healthcare expenditure in the OECD was 8.1 per cent of GDP, which has since risen to 9.3 per cent of GDP. In the UK, this has risen from around 7 per cent in 2000 to over 11 per cent in recent years. In a bid to reduce these cost increases, governments have introduced reforms to make use of markets in healthcare.

These focus on increasing the role of patient choice and promoting competition between providers, such as hospitals and primary care settings. But does choice and competition actually improve quality of care for patients? Our research reviews the evidence on market reforms in healthcare to shed light on this.

This is important as, even though market reforms featured more prominently in healthcare policy discussions in the past two decades, current priorities such as digitisation and moving healthcare into the community may also rely on competition and patient choice to succeed. Similarly, plans around integrated care and consolidation may benefit from a nuanced understanding of how competition and monopolies affect patient outcomes.

A mixed picture

What’s clear from the findings is that increased choice through market reforms can improve quality of care, but this is not a given. Evidence from the UK and Norway, for example, suggests that allowing patients to choose between providers (without any cost competition) can have a positive impact on patient mortality in emergency settings.

Research also suggests that patients respond to quality differences when choosing a provider. However, choice for some may be limited and there are demographic differences, with low-income patients more likely to register with poorly rated providers, partly because they lack the information networks of higher income peers.

Competition also introduces new modes of care. Deregulation has led to a rise in online provision, and in care being delivered by substitutes such as pharmacists and nurse practitioners. Evidence suggests these alternatives can provide similar outcomes to in-person care, offering greater convenience for patients and potential cost savings for providers. However, patients who use online consultations may also be more likely to require in-person follow-ups, partially offsetting those benefits.

Greater market freedom has also led to a wave of hospital mergers in some countries, reducing the number of providers and the competitive pressure between them. While concentrating some specialist services in larger centres can have benefits, mergers do not automatically improve quality, productivity or cost, and sometimes make healthcare more expensive. Without strong regulatory oversight, integration and consolidation could risk recreating the same local monopolies that market reforms aimed to reduce.

Areas for improvement

One important way to increase the benefits for patients is by improving access to clear, high-quality information. Rather than simply publishing information and hoping people read it, offering responsive, detailed comparison tools can help people to be better-informed, helping them reach decisions based on their individual needs. Community outreach programmes can help level the playing field, ensuring information does not only benefit those who are already better-informed.

On a macro level, many countries already have the power to scrutinise mergers that limit choice and offer little benefit, but this has often been underused. Using these powers more proactively would help ensure mergers add value, keep markets open to new entrants, and maintain competitive pressure on established providers.

"Increased choice through market reforms can improve quality of care, but this is not a given."

There is also a need to support integrated care while ensuring it does not recreate monopolies that deny patient choice. Regulators should prevent integrated providers from directing patients towards their own affiliated services regardless of quality. Where mergers are permitted, price regulation and quality incentives – such as shared savings models tied to measurable outcomes – can help ensure they genuinely benefit patients.

Regulation can also help keep markets open to new approaches. Allowing well-qualified substitutes such as nurse practitioners to deliver care, and new modes of care such as online consultations can expand choice and capacity, provided quality is closely monitored as the evidence base develops. This is particularly relevant in the context of the benchmarking approaches such as the updated NHS Performance Assessment Framework, where high-performing providers may be given more leeway to test innovative approaches.

Overall, market reforms have given patients greater choice and offer real potential for improvements in care. However, they have not yet fully delivered to the extent policymakers hoped. Better information for patients and stronger, more proactive regulation are the keys to changing this, preventing the re-emergence of monopolies and maximising the benefits of new options and approaches to care.

Find out more about the research

Read Professor Propper's paper

Digital transformation

Healthcare management and policy

Knowledge Categories

Health

Academic area

Economics & Public Policy

Governments intend market reforms to boost efficiencies in healthcare while improving outcomes. While this has led to greater patient choice, stronger regulation is needed to prevent monopolies, keep markets open to new entrants and maximise gains.

4 minute read

Off

How platforms can win by selling smarter, not harder

Jiahua Wu — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:14:02 +0000

How platforms can win by selling smarter, not harder

Jiahua Wu Wed, 15/01/2025 - 12:14

More blogs

2 November 2026 Knowledge

The corporate sustainability actions that reward investors

15 October 2026 Knowledge

Investing in nature: Why markets haven’t caught up yet

7 October 2026 Knowledge

Could working from home strain your relationship?

28 July 2025

Many online service platforms - think HomeAdvisor, RatedPeople, or Porch - face a common challenge: they sell job leads to providers who must then compete fiercely for customer attention. Allowing customers to post short-term jobs, these service providers can pay for access. However, if the competition is perceived to be too high, they’ll hold back, hurting both the platforms’ revenues and their growth potential.

We explore an innovative way these online platforms can strategically use information to manage provider expectations, boosting participation and revenues simultaneously.

Understanding provider behaviour

Service providers buy leads hoping to win jobs from customers. However, too many providers chasing a single lead decreases the value of participation. This fear of excessive competition can discourage them from buying leads in the first place.

Platforms possess critical information - the number of providers interested in a particular job -that they typically don’t share openly. This lack of transparency creates uncertainty, often making providers overly cautious.

One of the key benefits highlighted in the study is that partial information disclosure can help manage provider expectations based on the level of competition.

Nudging providers towards participation

Our study uses a framework known as Bayesian persuasion - the strategic sharing of information to influence someone’s decision by shaping what they believe. The framework allowed us to analyse how platforms can optimise the information they reveal about provider competition. The key insight: carefully tailored partial information can significantly increase lead purchases.

One of the key benefits highlighted in the study is that partial information disclosure can help manage provider expectations based on the level of competition. When competition is below a certain threshold, the mechanism allows interested providers to see clear value, as their chances of securing the job remain favourable. Conversely, for leads facing intense competition, i.e., above the threshold, a fixed, limited number of providers are encouraged to purchase the lead, regardless of how many are actually interested. Interestingly, providers respond positively to this consistent approach, perceiving their chances as favourable even in more competitive situations.

Why fixed prices beat flexible ones

Platforms often try dynamic pricing, changing lead prices based on real-time competition. Interestingly, the research finds this common practice is suboptimal. A well-designed fixed-price approach, paired with strategic information disclosure, generates more revenue.

Why? Providers perceive dynamic pricing as a direct signal of competition intensity - higher prices might mean higher demand, but also tougher competition. This direct correlation reduces their willingness to participate. In contrast, a fixed price coupled with carefully managed information reduces uncertainty, minimises coordination failures among providers, and consistently boosts revenue.

Effective real-world implementation

Implementing these insights is straightforward. Platforms need only set clear limits on how many providers can purchase each lead. This is already practiced informally by some platforms, but the study provides a precise method to identify optimal numbers, maximising provider participation and platform profits simultaneously.

By harnessing these insights, platforms can unlock new growth opportunities, sing revenues through smarter management of provider competition, rather than just harder selling.

This article reflects on findings from the paper "Information Design and Pricing in Lead-Selling Platforms with Supply Competition" by Jiahua Wu with co-authors Yanwei Sun, Niloofar Zamani-Foroushani and Zhe Liu from the ImperiaBusiness School.

This article was updated on 1 August 2025 to credit all the co-authors of the original research paper and their findings cited in the article.

Explore key findings from Jiahua Wu

Read Dr Wu's paper

Finance and institutional resilience

Knowledge Categories

Finance

Marketing

Academic area

Finance

New research shows how platforms can manage competition more effectively by rethinking how they share information with providers

Main image: Golden Sikorka / iStock via Getty Images Plus

3 minute read

Off

Professor Tommaso Valletti tells the "i" how Vodafone–Three merger could hit your phone bill

Evie Burrows-Taylor — Tue, 12 Nov 2024 14:36:08 +0000

Professor Tommaso Valletti tells the "i" how Vodafone–Three merger could hit your phone bill Evie Burrows-Taylor Tue, 12/11/2024 - 14:36

5 November 2024

Competition

Consumers

The hidden benefits of releasing your product later than your rivals

Mushegh Harutyunyan — Mon, 04 Nov 2024 11:05:22 +0000

The hidden benefits of releasing your product later than your rivals

Mushegh Harutyunyan Mon, 04/11/2024 - 11:05

4 November 2024

The benefits of being first to market are well known. But new research from ImperiaBusiness School shows that, in certain cases, biding your time could increase your profits.

Conventional wisdom warns against being late to market: a product that launches after its rivals risks losing potential customers and ceding market share to competitors.

And yet, we see some brands aren’t keen to rush to market, despite leaked reports and industry rumours suggesting their products are ready to go. Apple for instance didn’t release its smartwatch until 2015, later than predicted, and a year behind Samsung’s smartwatch.

These delays aren’t new. Back in the mid-1990s, Sony decided to wait four months to release its PlayStation in the US after Sega launched its Saturn gaming console – although Sony’s machine had already launched in some countries.

So, why delay? In the past, researchers have suggested that companies are making last minute improvements to their product or assessing an uncertain market – but consumer technology markets are fairly stable and enjoy healthy demand.

Staggered product release

Our work suggests that deliberate delays in launching can benefit both the early bird and the latecomer. We’ve created a mathematical model to compare two notional firms with shelf-ready products competing in the same market – and the results are surprising.

When a product is launched, some consumers will buy it immediately, but others will wait, safe in the knowledge that their favourite brand will launch a similar model down the line. And if two rival products aren’t competing simultaneously for the same group of consumers, this means they don’t need to compete on price so aggressively. Staggered product release dates mean both the early bird and latecomer can charge a premium for their products – it’s a win-win scenario (although not for the consumer).

Persuading consumers that this is a product worth waiting for is key

Even though a company may be missing out on customers, the higher prices it will charge due to diminished competitive pressure can more than make up for the lower sales, our model shows. We wanted to know if this theory held water across brands with different profiles. Would high-quality brands still benefit from a later launch than their lesser-known or lower quality rivals?

If the difference in quality and reputation between two companies is extreme, we found, both are better off releasing their products early. Delaying entry would significantly harm the low-quality brand because few consumers would be willing to wait. For the high-quality firm, given its huge advantage, the marginal benefit from delaying is again slim.

But for brands with a less pronounced difference in quality, the higher quality brand may have more incentives to delay the product launch. This is because consumers are more likely to wait for a higher quality brand than a low-quality one. The high-quality brand doesn’t lose too many customers by delaying, but gains substantially due to less intense price competition.

Know your market

To exploit these insights to their advantage, companies need to know their markets inside out – particularly if they want to time and price their products for maximum profits. They need to know whether their consumers are loyal, and they need to understand where their brand sits beside rivals in terms of differentiation: late product release can be profitable only when there is enough differentiation to convince some consumers to wait for the product. And they must gauge the size of the market and keep on top of consumer numbers.

We’ve found that the latest time to enter a market with a similar product is before roughly a third of consumers intend to buy an item in the product category – if they wait longer, businesses may lose out. There are tools and analyses available that can equip strategists to estimate the size of a market, and judge whether it will pay to delay the launch of a new product.

Communicate with your customers

And if a brand decides to delay the launch rather than rush to market, then it should make it a priority to communicate clearly to consumers that its own product is on its way, and what makes it superior.

Persuading consumers that this is a product worth waiting for is key. Here, companies can use marketing tactics such as releasing early samples for influencers, holding special events, working with media to highlight features that make this product stand out and flagging the release date.

Companies need to know their markets inside out – particularly if they want to time and price their products for maximum profits

While our findings highlight the strategic benefits of delaying product launches, several questions merit further investigation:

How do varying market conditions, such as rapid technological changes or evolving consumer preferences, affect the success of staggered releases?
What role do marketing strategies play in maintaining consumer interest during these delays?
How does the growing prevalence of second-hand markets influence the dynamics of new product launches and pricing strategies?

Understanding these complexities will help companies refine their strategies to remain competitive.

This article draws on findings from "Don’t Hurry, Be Happy! The Bright Side of Late Product Release" by Mushegh Harutyunyan (��) and Chakravarthi Narasimhan (Washington University in St. Louis).

Monthly newsletter

Receive the latest insights from ImperiaBusiness School

Do consumers really care about sustainability?

Consumers may care about sustainability in theory, but how much does it impact their spending habits? And what can policymakers do to encourage us all to make more eco-friendly choices?

Download PDF

Academic area

Marketing

Knowledge Categories

Marketing

Off

Draghi is right on many issues, but he is wrong on telecoms: Professor Tommaso Valletti co-authors article in Vox

Evie Burrows-Taylor — Fri, 04 Oct 2024 11:36:51 +0000

Draghi is right on many issues, but he is wrong on telecoms: Professor Tommaso Valletti co-authors article in Vox Evie Burrows-Taylor Fri, 04/10/2024 - 11:36

17 September 2024

Competition

Technology

La Repubblica interviews Professor Tommaso Valletti on the US vs Google landmark antitrust case

Evie Burrows-Taylor — Mon, 19 Aug 2024 10:32:43 +0000

La Repubblica interviews Professor Tommaso Valletti on the US vs Google landmark antitrust case Evie Burrows-Taylor Mon, 19/08/2024 - 10:32

6 August 2024

Digital transformation

The New York Times speaks to Professor Tommaso Valletti about the challenges facing regulators

Evie Burrows-Taylor — Wed, 03 Jul 2024 11:29:22 +0000

The New York Times speaks to Professor Tommaso Valletti about the challenges facing regulators Evie Burrows-Taylor Wed, 03/07/2024 - 11:29

24 June 2024

Competition

The art of effective conversation

Michael Yeomans — Thu, 02 May 2024 13:27:37 +0000

The art of effective conversation

Michael Yeomans Thu, 02/05/2024 - 13:27

9 May 2024

Dr Michael Yeomans offers practical strategies for aligning conversational goals with business objectives, ensuring every interaction counts

Conversation matters – nearly every human activity involves conversation, whether spoken or written. But in a business world increasingly defined by remote and hybrid work, and by automated and algorithmic processes, it can feel like opportunities to communicate and converse with colleagues, staff, bosses and customers are few and far between.

And yet the stakes of each of those conversations – an impression, a connection, a decision – are high.

So how do we know if a conversation is going well? There’s no single definition of effective conversation that will apply to all people in all situations, but we can perhaps say that a conversation is successful for one person if they achieve their goals. To do this, though, people first need to be aware of their goals – something that is rarely the case.

The most effective conversationalists take a much more deliberate approach

Our research sets out a framework – the “conversational circumplex” – that can help in this regard, by classifying the different goals people might pursue in conversation. We divide these into two categories: informational (the extent to which a speaker’s motive is to give or receive accurate information) and relational (the extent to which a speaker’s motive is to build the relationship).

A speaker with high informational motivation might ask a lot of questions or give instructions, while low informational motivation might see them tell lies, keep quiet, or dodge questions. High relational motivation might see a speaker apologise, admit an error, or flatter their partner, whereas low relational motivation may lead them to claim credit, assign blame, or avoid laughing at a joke.

Identifying goals in conversation

Conversational goals are complex and multifaceted. They are also changeable – a single comment or a shift in circumstances might alter them completely. Goals can also be incompatible with one another. For example, a manager might want to ask a staff member about the progress of a project but refrain from doing so for fear of being perceived as overbearing.

The same applies to your conversation partner’s goals, and it’s important to recognise that their goals may not be in line with yours. Failure to be aware of this can prevent you from seeking information or finding ways to mutually satisfy everyone’s goals.

A conversation is successful for one person if they achieve their goals

The conversational circumplex can help provide clarity here. It can help you identify your own goals, and plan for how these might come into conflict during the conversation. It can also help you reflect on the other person’s goals, in order to spot potential points of alignment and conflict. This can help you make choices that are more likely to advance both your interests.

The distance between any two goals within the circumplex gives an idea of how compatible they might be, with bridging the gap between informational and relational goals particularly challenging. For example, coordinating plans and brainstorming new ideas might be easier to pair in a single conversation, whereas persuading while also trying to avoid awkwardness may be tougher to achieve simultaneously.

Practical tips for professional conversations

There are two key tips for putting this learning into practice. Received wisdom would have us believe that good conversation is effortless and unprepared. In truth, however, the most effective conversationalists take a much more deliberate approach. So, the first practical tip is to spend time – even if it’s as little as 30 seconds – thinking about your goals and the other person’s goals.

This is because the act of identifying goals ahead of time helps to mitigate stress and allows you to fully focus on the conversation, rather than worrying about what to talk about or what direction it might take. The circumplex can potentially make this more effective, by drawing your attention to potential points of conflict and avenues for agreement.

Conversational goals [...] are also changeable – a single comment or a shift in circumstances might alter them completely

The second practical tip is to ask questions. These should be relevant to the topic at hand and follow from what the other person is saying. Again, the circumplex can be useful here, as a sense of both your own goals and the other person’s goals makes it more likely that you will ask fruitful questions, which either bring you closer to agreement or reveal more information about the other person’s motives.

These might seem like “good to know” tips for everyday life, but they can also be critical tools in the business world. For example, there is a growing demand for interpersonal "soft" skills in C-suite executives. This suggests there is value in starting to hone awareness of different conversational approaches, motives and goals at any career stage.

Over time, as you reflect on how successful different approaches are in achieving different goals, and to what extent you and others lean towards relational or informational goals in certain scenarios, this can help you become a better, more effective, and – ultimately – more successful conversationalist.

This article draws on findings from “The Conversational Circumplex: Identifying, Prioritizing, and Pursuing Informational and Relational Motives in Conversation” by Michael Yeomans (��), Maurice E. Schweitzer (University of Pennsylvania) and Alison Wood Brooks (Harvard University).

Competition

Networking

Download PDF

Academic area

Management & Entrepreneurship

Knowledge Categories

Strategy & Leadership

Off

Professor Tommaso Valletti speaks to the Financial Times about antitrust and productivity

Evie Burrows-Taylor — Wed, 01 May 2024 08:59:01 +0000

Professor Tommaso Valletti speaks to the Financial Times about antitrust and productivity Evie Burrows-Taylor Wed, 01/05/2024 - 08:59

22 April 2024

Competition

Competition

ImperiaBusiness School students pitch to investors at London Tech Week

ImperiaBusiness School students pitch to investors at London Tech Week

Dr Omar Mir launches ImperiaBusiness School’s Technology Leader Speaker Series with a call to put people at the heart of AI

ImperiaBusiness School’s gender equality commitment recognised with Athena Swan Silver Award

Making clean energy pay off for the communities that host it

Subscribe for research and events from the Business School

Share

Student founders from ImperiaBusiness School’s MSc Innovation, Entrepreneurship & Management programme showcased their ventures to investors, innovators and industry leaders at one of the UK's leading technology events.

Are healthcare market reforms delivering better outcomes for patients?

Are healthcare market reforms delivering better outcomes for patients?

More blogs

The corporate sustainability actions that reward investors

Investing in nature: Why markets haven’t caught up yet

Could working from home strain your relationship?

Article at a glance:

Over the past 20 years, governments have turned to market reforms and competition to curb costs and raise standards in healthcare.

Patient choice has increased, but more support is needed to help those who are less able to exercise this choice.

Proactive scrutiny of mergers, alongside quality incentives and openness to new providers and modes of care, could ensure integration improves care rather than re-establishing local monopolies.

A mixed picture

Areas for improvement

Find out more about the research

Share

Governments intend market reforms to boost efficiencies in healthcare while improving outcomes. While this has led to greater patient choice, stronger regulation is needed to prevent monopolies, keep markets open to new entrants and maximise gains.

How platforms can win by selling smarter, not harder

How platforms can win by selling smarter, not harder

More blogs

The corporate sustainability actions that reward investors

Investing in nature: Why markets haven’t caught up yet

Could working from home strain your relationship?

Understanding provider behaviour

Nudging providers towards participation

Why fixed prices beat flexible ones

Effective real-world implementation

Explore key findings from Jiahua Wu

Share

New research shows how platforms can manage competition more effectively by rethinking how they share information with providers

Professor Tommaso Valletti tells the "i" how Vodafone–Three merger could hit your phone bill

Share

The hidden benefits of releasing your product later than your rivals

The benefits of being first to market are well known. But new research from ImperiaBusiness School shows that, in certain cases, biding your time could increase your profits.

Staggered product release

Know your market

Communicate with your customers

Monthly newsletter

Do consumers really care about sustainability?

Draghi is right on many issues, but he is wrong on telecoms: Professor Tommaso Valletti co-authors article in Vox

Share

La Repubblica interviews Professor Tommaso Valletti on the US vs Google landmark antitrust case

Share

The New York Times speaks to Professor Tommaso Valletti about the challenges facing regulators

Share

The art of effective conversation

Dr Michael Yeomans offers practical strategies for aligning conversational goals with business objectives, ensuring every interaction counts

Identifying goals in conversation

Practical tips for professional conversations

Monthly newsletter

Professor Tommaso Valletti speaks to the Financial Times about antitrust and productivity

Share