'A plague on both your houses': why to preserve your rival reputation

Two firms produce a product that can be of high or low quality, which is not known to customers. One of the firms accuses another that it produces a low-quality product, while this information (or rumour) can be either true or not. Consumers believe rumours with some probability, but if they believe, they may also conclude that general quality in the market is low. I show that, as long as both firms stay in the market, the firm that spreads rumours is worse off relative to the case without rumours. Surprisingly, this holds even if consumers believe that this firm produces a high-quality product with certainty.

Automated summary

This passage describes that two firms produce a product with varying qualities, but customers are unaware of this. One of the firms accuses the other of producing low-quality products, and this accusation can either be true or false. Customers have a certain probability of believing rumors, and if they do, they may conclude that the overall quality in the market is low. The study shows that, regardless of whether customers believe that one firm produces high-quality products, the firm that spreads rumors is worse off as long as both firms remain in the market.