Subject. This article discusses digital zombie platforms. Objectives. The article aims to identify attributes and causes of zombification performed by digital platforms in multilateral markets. Methods. For the study, we used general research methods, including analysis and synthesis, and the case study approach. Results. The article analyzes the causes behind the emergence of digital zombie digital platforms, including the high degree of information asymmetry of such companies, their specifics of venture financing, and macroeconomic conditions. The article examines the limitations of traditional criteria for identifying zombie companies when applied to digital platforms. Based on case studies of digital platforms, the article formulates identification criteria for zombie digital platforms, focusing on the changes in venture capital raising and the specifics of management of customer base. Conclusions and Relevance. Digital platforms operating in winner-takes-all markets are susceptible to zombification due to the specifics of their business models and capital raising strategies. The traditional approaches to identifying zombie companies are ineffective for analyzing digital platforms. The identification criteria proposed can help improve the accuracy of assessing the viability of digital platforms.
Keywords: digital platform, multilateral market, network effects, zombie company, loss-making company
References:
Evans D.S., Schmalensee R. Failure to launch: Critical mass in platform businesses. Review of Network Economics, 2010, vol. 9, iss. 4. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1353502
Sun M., Tse E. When Does the Winner Take All in Two-Sided Markets? Review of Network Economics, 2007, vol. 6, iss. 1, pp. 16–40. DOI: 10.2202/1446-9022.1108
Rajgopal S., Venkatachalam M., Kotha S. The value relevance of network advantages: The case of e-commerce firms. Journal of Accounting Research, 2003, vol. 41, iss. 1, pp. 135–162. DOI: 10.1111/1475-679X.00099 EDN: EUIFMN
Gupta S., Hanssens D., Hardie B. et al. Modeling Customer Lifetime Value. Journal of Service Research, 2006, vol. 9, iss. 2, pp. 139–155. DOI: 10.1177/1094670506293810
McCarthy D.M., Fader P.S. Customer-Based Corporate Valuation for Publicly Traded Non-Contractual Firms. Journal of Marketing Research, 2018, vol. 55, iss. 5, pp. 617–635. DOI: 10.1177/0022243718802843
Srivastava A. Trivialization of the bottom line and losing relevance of losses. Review of Accounting Studies, 2023, vol. 28, pp. 1190–1208. DOI: 10.1007/s11142-023-09794-5 EDN: KZUTCB
Rai A.K., Sharma R., Arora H. Zombie firms and their congestion effects: exploration of industrial upgradation and innovation. International Review of Applied Economics, 2025, vol. 37, iss. 1, pp. 1–27. DOI: 10.1080/02692171.2025.2468656
Caballero R.J., Hoshi T., Kashyap A.K. Zombie Lending and Depressed Restructuring in Japan. American Economic Review, 2008, vol. 98, no. 5, pp. 1943–1977. DOI: 10.1257/aer.98.5.1943
Fukuda S., Nakamura J. Why Did ‘Zombie' Firms Recover in Japan? The World Economy, 2011, vol. 34, iss. 7, pp. 1124–1137. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9701.2011.01368.x
Schivardi F., Sette E., Tabellini G. Credit Misallocation During the European Financial Crisis. The Economic Journal, 2022, vol. 132, iss. 641, pp. 391–423. DOI: 10.1093/ej/ueab039 EDN: CVVQOI
Dai X., Qiao X., Song L. Zombie firms in China's coal mining sector: Identification, transition determinants and policy implications. Resources Policy, 2019, vol. 62, pp. 664–673. DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.11.016
He Q., Li X., Zhu W. Political connection and the walking dead: Evidence from China's privately owned firms. International Review of Economics & Finance, 2020, vol. 69, pp. 1056–1070. DOI: 10.1016/j.iref.2018.12.007 EDN: LRTGEI
Carreira C., Teixeira P., Nieto-Carrillo E. Recovery and exit of zombie firms in Portugal. Small Business Economics, 2022, vol. 59, pp. 491–519. DOI: 10.1007/s11187-021-00483-8 EDN: NYAMUH
Albuquerque B., Iyer R. The Rise of the Walking Dead: Zombie Firms Around the World. Journal of International Economics, 2024, vol. 152, 104019. DOI: 10.1016/j.jinteco.2024.104019 EDN: LRNENJ
Altman E.I., Dai R., Wang W. Global zombie companies: measurements, determinants, and outcomes. Journal of International Business Studies, 2024, vol. 55, pp. 723–744. DOI: 10.1057/s41267-024-00689-4 EDN: IYOBGC
Colombo G.D.C. da Costa Gomes M., Eça J.P.A., Ribeiro do Valle M. Analysis of the capital structure of startups in light of the tradeoff and pecking order theories. REGEPE Entrepreneurship and Small Business Journal, 2023, vol. 12, no. 3. DOI: 10.14211/regepe.esbj.e2338 EDN: LJODSM
Fourati H., Affes H. The Capital Structure of Business Start-Up: Is There a Pecking Order Theory or a Reversed Pecking Order? – Evidence from the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics. Technology and Investment, 2013, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 244–254. DOI: 10.4236/ti.2013.44029
Paul S., Whittam G., Wyper J. The pecking order hypothesis: does it apply to start-up firms? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 2007, vol. 14, iss. 1, pp. 8–21. DOI: 10.1108/14626000710727854
Kelley K., Thams Y. Creating Shared Reputational Value while Managing Informational Asymmetries across Borders: The Platform Business Paradox. AIB Insights, 2021, vol. 21, iss. 3. DOI: 10.46697/001c.28416 EDN: TDTTDI
Ngo-Ye T.L. Ebay or Craigslist?: Explaining Users' Choice of Online Transaction Community. Issues in Information Systems, 2013, vol. 14, iss. 2, pp. 382–392. DOI: 10.48009/2_iis_2013_382-392
