Effective Auction Mechanisms to Maximize Participation
Problem 1: Allocation problem
1. Preferencing order according to participants
In the allocation problem section, the preference order of different persons is generated. In this preference order, the first person’s preference is high on the fifth day. The second person's preference is high on the second day, the third person’s preference is high on the fourth day, the fourth person’s preference is high on the third day, the fifth person’s preference is high on the third day, and the sixth person’s preference is high on the fourth day which is same as the third day. The seventh person’s preference is high on the first day and the last person's or the eighth person’s preference is high on the fifth day. However, it is seen that the preference level of participants in the auction is decreased so that is the reason for dissatisfaction for all the participants as well as barters. The survey showed this dissatisfaction level throughout the first problem that is based on the allocation problem. To analyse the preference of an individual, it is needed to follow a module that is related to the individual's fundamental aspects. From this module, it has been concluded that it is essential for setting a representation of appropriate as well as alternative functions of pReferences. On the other hand, the method of ranking is based on SVM to describe the concept of preferences of participants who participated in the auction in the United Kingdom.
Grab The Best Academic Assistance In Just One Click
The properties of the “SVM” method are complete preferences. The preferences can be completed if the points of consumption on the preference order are equal, greater than as well as less than. The second property is “reflexive preference” which is based on reflex. The third main property is transitive preferences. It means the transitivity can be plausible as well as intuitive. The last property is strongly monotonic preferences. On the other hand, the preferred types are based on cumulative, convertible, participating as well as non-cumulative. The preferences of the model can help to allocate the new preference level through individuals who participated in the auction. The preference level is important for examining the survey because it helps to understand the dissatisfaction level. On the other side, it assists in understanding the number of participants who are not able to participate in this auction.
As per the proposal, it can be said that After exchanging, the first person gets 5 preferences for attending the auction, the second person gets 6 preferences, the third person gets 2 preferences in the auction, the fourth person gets 1 preference, the fifth person gets 3 preferences, the sixth person gets 7 preferences, the seventh person gets 4 preferences and last person gets the preferences of 8. All the bidders try to prove that this process of exchange is best for understanding preference levels and it cannot be possible to improve. But it can be said that it is not possible to exchange appropriately. This exchange is done with the help of the survey.
Problem 2: Auctions
1. The suggested auction format
Using the information provided, it would be suggested that they vote for a first-price auction. The first price bid auction is more favorable than the sealed price auction that is mentioned as the second. It is seen that the total number of participants is 23, including Barkers. In this case, 11 participants are registered to vote for the first price-sealed bid auction whereas for voting second price auction, 11 participants are registered. So for this reason, the decisive vote has occurred for the market which is known as Barked. From the following information it is noticed that for the first price sealed auctions, all the participating bidders have to pay exactly the amount which they bid at the time of the auction. On the other hand, for the second price auction, registered participants have to pay above 0.01$ of the second highest bidder. So it is clear that every registered participant wants to pay for the “First Price sealed auction” rather than the “Second Price auction”. In the case of the first-price bidder, the bidder who is ranked as the top will pay the exact amount. So it will be beneficial if participants who are presented in the auction, vote for the first sealed bid auction. So it has been concluded from the information that all the participants should vote for the “First sealed auction” in the United Kingdom. The first price bid auction is a type of auction that refers to the advertisement of the economic programs where the buyers of the bid propose the impression of the highest amount. In this type of auction, the winning bidder also pays more or the exact bid price and further serves the advertisement requirements. The First price bid auctions primarily happen in the closed-door scenario or publically with respect to the floor price. “First price sealed bid auction (FPSBA)” is a popular type of monetary submission of the valuation that also refers to the blind auction. As long as the amount of the bid is lower than the floor rate it is bought by the winner section of the bidder. The second price bid auction is one of the common types of auction, therefore the mechanism also contains non-truthful auctions throughout the United Kingdom. Here, every bidder makes a bid in this auction. This second bid auction plays an important and crucial role in the system of bid auctions where the highest wins and pays the actual and accurate amount which is raised in the process of auctions. This is considered a high-level programming price bidding auction which is mentioned in this survey. In the first price if someone wins then he/she needs to pay exactly what he/she has bid, not more than that or less than that. It actually maximizes the cost for the seller. Both are part of the digital value mode of payment. The second price makes where the bid wins you pay more than the second highest bid where the auction is happening. The second price makes low risk. The total amount raised in the bid that much amount is required to be paid by the bidder. Suppose buyer 1 bids an amount of 4.50 euros and buyer 2 bids 5 then buyer 2 wins and he/she has to pay only one percent extra. On the other side, it can be followed that various rules of the auction are used by the auction model of the first price rather than the auction of the second price.
To understand the participation of bidders in the First sealed price auction and the second price auction, the calculation is needed for the outline.
Y~N (u, ?)
Here, u is the participant in the first price-sealed auction, whereas ? is the participation of the second price-sealed auction.
Z= Y-u/?
Y= u+Z?
Z= 37-11/11
=26/11=2.36
As mentioned before
Y= u+Z? [Where u=11, Z= 2.4 and ?=11]
=11+2.36(11)
=11+25.96
=36.96
The above calculation is based on the data which is provided through the Survey of the charity in the United Kingdom.
2. Advice
It is seen that 10 participants out of 23 participants will not participate in the auction. So it is said that the charity wants to understand how to arrange the vote for the second time and ask all of the participants of the auction to participate the second time. But for the second time, participants' advice may be changed after participating in the auction. It is known from the analysis of the survey to arrange one more time auction that can help sellers. It can be the auction changes their preferences. As 10 participants are not able to participate, it can be seen that participation in the First sealed auction, as well as the Second auction, is not possible and that can impact on sellers of the Charity. In this case, it is mentioned that 10 participants are not attending the auction, so it can be said that 10 participants can belong through the first or second sealed price auction. The non-participation of bidders is equal to 37 approximately. The charity wants to get an explanation that will be clear. So my advice is to organize a second time auction and 13 participants which is different from the total number of participants in the auction minus the left-out participants.
Previously the number of attending auctions was 23, including Barker. Not attending participants who are previously registered is 10, so now the rest of the participants are 13 who will attend the second time auction. The calculation of this auction is done with the help of SVM analysis which is evaluated above. So it is advised that is followed by the survey is new formatting survey can help to change this exchange level and participation level appropriately. It helps all the sellers if the bidders change their minds about voting and it assists to enhance the vote for the first price bid sealed auction. From the advice, it is clear that the rest of the participants should change their minds and participate in the first sealed auction.
Conclusion Analysis of the issue of allocation and auction mechanisms pinpoints the importance of determining participants' preferences and dissatisfaction levels for improving auction outcomes. Implementation of SVM-based ranking methods ensures a systematic evaluation process of preferences and helps derive optimal allocation policies. The information about preferences portrayed dissatisfaction through preference levels' decrease, which impacts participation and satisfaction.
For the auctions, the First Price Sealed Bid Auction was selected in place of the Second Price Auction, which was considered more convenient and preferable by the participants. The suggestion for holding a second auction is with the intention of compensating for the non-participation of 10 out of 23 participants so that there will be a chance to enhance participation and maximize the sellers' returns. By strategic interventions and matching of preferences, the participants can be encouraged towards active engagement, leading to successful results for the charity auctions.
Reference list
Journals
Beek, R., Van Hoecke, J. and Derom, I., 2023. Sponsorship and social justice: brand positioning on diversity and inclusion in sports marketing during the 2020 UEFA European football championship. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, (ahead-of-print).
Bjergkilde, D. and Stenner, P., 2021. Producing and managing continuous change in an educational context: liminal affective technologies and leadership. Subjectivity, 14(1-2), pp.53-72.
Cambra?Fierro, J.J. and Pérez, L., 2022. (Re) thinking smart in rural contexts: A multi?country study. Growth and Change, 53(2), pp.868-889.
de Haan, D. and Sotiriadou, P., 2019. An analysis of the multi-level factors affecting the coaching of elite women athletes. Managing Sport and Leisure, 24(5), pp.307-320.
Haque, A.N., Lemanski, C. and de Groot, J., 2021. Why do low-income urban dwellers reject energy technologies? Exploring the socio-cultural acceptance of solar adoption in Mumbai and Cape Town. Energy Research & Social Science, 74, p.101954.
Hofsmarken, T., 2020. A qualitative study of systemic leadership training in a Danish municipality. Leaders’ experiences of participating in leadership training based on a systemic approach (Doctoral dissertation, Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust/University of East London).
Ilieva, R.T., Cohen, N., Israel, M., Specht, K., Fox-Kämper, R., Fargue-Lelièvre, A., Poni?y, L., Schoen, V., Caputo, S., Kirby, C.K. and Goldstein, B., 2022. The socio-cultural benefits of urban agriculture: a review of the literature. Land, 11(5), p.622.
Kim, C. and Kim, K.A., 2021. The institutional change from e-government toward smarter city; comparative analysis between Royal Borough of Greenwich, UK, and Seongdong-gu, South Korea. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(1), p.42.
Küttel, A., Christensen, M.K., Zysko, J. and Hansen, J., 2020. A cross-cultural comparison of dual career environments for elite athletes in Switzerland, Denmark, and Poland. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18(4), pp.454-471.
Lackenbauer, P.W., 2019. Global Arctic Leadership in an Era of Cooperation and Competition. Canada’s Arctic Agenda: Into the Vortex, pp.67-73.
Maheshwari, G., 2022. Influence of teacher-perceived transformational and transactional school leadership on teachers’ job satisfaction and performance: a case of Vietnam. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 21(4), pp.876-890.
Martínez-Rodriguez, I., Callejas-Albiñana, F.E. and Callejas-Albiñana, A.I., 2020. Economic and socio-cultural drivers of necessity and opportunity entrepreneurship depend on the business cycle phase. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 21(2), pp.373-394.
Ptak, E.N., Graversgaard, M., Refsgaard, J.C. and Dalgaard, T., 2020. Nitrate management discourses in Poland and Denmark—laggards or leaders in water quality protection? Water, 12(9), p.2371.
Rahman, M.M., DEVELOPMENT OF WOMEN LEADERSHIP AT THE GRASSROOTS IN BANGLADESH: A STUDY OF ITS STRUCTURES, CONTEXTS AND PROCESSES. Journal of History & Social Sciences (JHSS), 6, pp.1-12.
Rickley, M., 2023. A Systematic Review of Power in Global Leadership.
Singh, J., Singhania, S. and Agrawal, D., 2023. Does board gender diversity impact financial performance? Evidence from the Indian IT sector. Society and Business Review, 18(1), pp.51-70.
Stephenson, J.R., Sovacool, B.K. and Inderberg, T.H.J., 2021. Energy cultures and national decarbonization pathways. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 137, p.110592.
