## Digital intermediation platforms (DIPs)

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [Digital intermediation platforms (DIPs)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/data/statistics/bpm6/implementation-support/digital-intermediation-platforms.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/data/statistics/bpm6/implementation-support/digital-intermediation-platforms.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/data/statistics/bpm6/implementation-support/digital-intermediation-platforms.pdf.json)

---

### Overview: growth, scale, and economic impact
- DIPs leverage network effects to create multi-sided markets across transport, accommodation, food delivery, and life-services, delivering efficiency, convenience, and wider choice.
- Over the past decade, DIPs expanded rapidly in scale, users, and geographic reach, generating billions in revenues and reshaping global service markets.
- Key statistics:
  - In the United States, rideshare, accommodation, and food delivery platforms contributed at least $31 billion in gross revenue in 2021.
  - Airbnb: over 8 million listings across 220 countries serving more than 200 million users worldwide.
  - Uber: scaled operations in 70 countries with more than 180 million monthly active users.

### Definitions, scope, and product classification
- Definition:
  - Digital platforms supply a digital service that facilitates interactions between two or more distinct but interdependent sets of users via the internet.
- Four platform types (BPM7/2025 SNA focus):
  - Nonfinancial digital intermediation platforms: facilitate transactions between buyers and sellers for ordering and delivery of goods, nonproduced nonfinancial assets and services for a fee or commission without taking ownership.
  - Free online platforms: facilitate noncommercial interactions or provide entertainment and information services, usually funded by advertising and data collection.
  - Financial digital platforms: intermediate funding or payment transactions for a fee.
  - Other fee-based digital platforms: facilitate interactions other than transactions in goods/nonproduced assets/services or financial transactions.
- Product frameworks:
  - CPC Ver.3.0 consolidates intermediation under Division 85 “Support services” (Groups 855, 856, 857, 858).
  - EBOPS 2026 recommends five sub-categories: 13.1 — Intermediation services for goods; 13.2 — transport; 13.3 — accommodation; 13.4 — food and beverage; 13.5 — other nonfinancial intermediation services.
  - Note: CPC V 3.0 groups do not correspond exactly to EBOPS 2026 categories.

### Financial digital platforms: categories and output treatment
- Four main categories of financial digital platforms:
  - Peer-to-peer and other online lending platforms
  - Equity-based crowdfunding platforms
  - Philanthropic (donation-based) crowdfunding platforms
  - Reward-based crowdfunding platforms (donors expect a nonfinancial reward)
- Brokerage on financial instruments and fees related to platforms that intermediate funding or payment transactions are included in financial services (excluded from nonfinancial intermediation).
- Output recording:
  - Nonfinancial DIPs: output recorded under nonfinancial intermediation services.
  - Financial DIPs: output recorded as financial services.
  - Nominal output recorded on a net basis reflecting only fees and commissions retained by the DIP (not amounts distributed to underlying sellers); intermediaries may also receive advertising revenues.

### Charging mechanisms, consumption attribution, and time of recording
- Charging mechanisms: explicit fees, implicit fees, advertising revenues, or mixed.
- Consumption attribution scenarios:
  - If seller and buyer are invoiced separately for platform services, both consume intermediation services.
  - If all fees invoiced to seller/producer, only seller/producer consumes intermediation services.
  - If all fees invoiced to buyer/consumer, only buyer/consumer consumes intermediation services.
- Time of recording (Section III.E):
  - First-best approach: record intermediation service at booking confirmation (accrual basis when service is provided).
  - Second-best (practical alternative): align with major DIPs’ revenue recognition when the intermediated service/good is provided/delivered; document deviations from accrual basis in national accounts and BOP metadata.
  - Cited industry practice: Booking Holdings Annual Report 2023; Airbnb Annual Report 2025; Expedia Annual Reports 2025 (revenue recognition when arranged travel services begin to be used).

### Price and volume measurement guidance (Box 1)
- Nominal output: net fees and advertising revenue retained by DIP.
- Volume measurement:
  - Ideally deflate nominal intermediation fee and advertising revenue by separate constant-quality PPIs.
  - For percentage-based commissions, the price index should reflect changes in both the percentage charged and prices of underlying services.
- Numerical example (preserve exact values):
  - DIP fee = 10% of accommodation value.
  - Year 1: 100,000 hotel night stays, average value $100 per night → nominal output = 100,000 * $100 * 10% = $1,000,000.
  - Year 2: 100,000 hotel night stays, average value $150 per night, same 10% fee → nominal output = 100,000 * $150 * 10% = $1,500,000.
  - If PPI considers only percentage fee, index unchanged and full increase reflected as volume change; if PPI considers percentage fee and underlying service price, index rises 50% and volumes unchanged—measurement principles favor the latter.
- Practical alternative: collect only the percentage fee from DIP and apply it to a nominal value adjusted by changes in a PPI for the underlying service (e.g., accommodation PPI).
- Sampling: refresh establishment and item samples regularly; intervals of five or more years are likely too long.

### Operational models of DIPs and residency determination
- Three operational models and statistical implications:
  - Model 1 — Multinational with subsidiaries:
    - Headquarters in one country with resident subsidiaries/affiliates in markets where active (examples: Airbnb, Uber).
    - Subsidiaries contract directly with local service providers and customers; revenues and costs reported within their economies; cross-border transactions recorded in BOP statistics.
  - Model 2 — Centralized headquarters with liaison/marketing offices:
    - Headquarters centralize contractual, financial, and intermediation activities; local offices not legally responsible for contracting (examples: Preply, GetYourGuide).
    - Platform fees may be recorded abroad even when services consumed domestically; alternative compilation methods needed (targeted surveys, payment data, bilateral data exchanges).
  - Model 3 — Single-country operations:
    - Platforms operate only within a single country (examples: Ola Cabs in India, Foodsi in Poland).
    - All contractual and financial relationships occur between residents; intermediation services provided to nonresidents during visits are recorded as exports in the traveler’s destination BOP.
- Determining resident producer of intermediation services (Box 2):
  - Production attributed to institutional unit that:
    - Contracts directly with buyers and sellers,
    - Establishes platform terms and conditions,
    - Receives intermediation fees or commissions,
    - Assumes principal economic risks,
    - Exercises primary control over intermediation process.
  - Supporting activities (software development, data processing, customer support, advertising, marketing, payment processing, administrative services) are producers of those supporting services, not intermediation services.
  - Useful indicators: legal entity in contracts, recipient of fees, merchant-of-record arrangements, payment-settlement structures, financial statements, tax records, platform terms and conditions, regulatory information; no single indicator is decisive.

### Treatment of global technology/support centers
- Global/regional technology centers providing software development, data management, customer support, and IT infrastructure do not themselves constitute providers of intermediation services.
- Under 2025 SNA/BPM7 principles, intermediation production attributed to the unit that contracts buyers and sellers and assumes economic risks (typically headquarters or legal subsidiary).
- Technology/support centers recorded as producers of IT services/back-office services depending on nature of transactions and contracts.

### Dependent contractors, formal vs informal
- Households receiving remuneration for goods/services facilitated by DIPs are unincorporated household enterprises.
- If household not recognized as distinct market producer and not covered by formal arrangements, it is regarded as an informal enterprise.
- Dependent contractors classification varies by country:
  - Registered participants, social insurance coverage, or regulation → classified as formal workers.
  - No registration/limited regulation → classified as informal workers.

### Recording rules for explicit and implicit fees (Section F and Table 2 guidance)
- Explicit fees (separately invoiced to buyer and/or seller): record fees as paid from buyer and/or seller to DIP, per invoice.
- Implicit fees where amount known but payer known: estimate fees paid from buyer and/or seller and record as paid to DIP.
- Implicit fees where neither amount nor payer known: estimate total fees and record as paid by the seller to DIP.
- Estimation guidance: approximate implicit fees using assumptions based on benchmarks and observed practices; example industry fee reference:
  - In the USA, Airbnb charges sellers a three percent transaction fee on lodging fees and buyers a fee of approximately 14 percent on the value of the stay (fee varies by price and length of stay).

### Recording DIP transactions under travel and multi-actor transactions
- Recording under travel (F.2):
  - If DIP resident in destination economy being visited: include digital intermediation services under travel debits/expenditure of the visiting resident economy; underlying goods/services and associated intermediation services form part of travel.
  - If DIP resident in a third economy: record digital intermediation service as a nonfinancial intermediation services debit/expenditure of visiting resident economy.
  - If DIP resident in traveler’s own economy: resident-to-resident and not recorded in BOP.
- Transactions with four actors (seller, buyer, delivery person/dasher, and DIP) (F.3):
  - Example: food delivery platforms intermediate seller, buyer, and dasher; platforms often register locally for regulatory/logistical reasons.
  - Intermediation fees typically explicitly charged to main product provider (commission) and final buyer (service fees); dashers implicitly charged (difference between delivery fee collected and payment disbursed).
  - Cross-border elements generally absent unless buyer is nonresident.

### Recording of items other than intermediation fees and taxes collected by platforms
- Receipts often include taxes, cleaning charges, tips, driver benefit fees; whether items appear separately or combined depends on regulations.
- If compilers adjust total billed amount assuming only intermediation fee beyond the good/service, the fee can be overstated; compilers should adjust for other service charges and taxes.
- Taxes collected by platforms on behalf of third parties:
  - Not part of DIP output.
  - Record as taxes on production and on imports (taxes on goods and services payable as a result of production).
  - Record as direct payment from buyer to tax authority; platform acts as collector.
  - If not separately identified, compilers should estimate via consultation with DIPs and/or tax authorities.

### Rebates, differential and dynamic pricing (F.6) — recording and numerical examples
- DIPs apply algorithmic differential and dynamic pricing; promotional rebates reduce effective transaction price for buyers.
- Funding of rebates:
  - Ride-hailing discounts mostly funded by the platform.
  - Accommodation rebates generally provided by hosts; platforms may occasionally contribute.
- Accounting and recording guidance (BPM7 paragraph 16.47/2025 SNA paragraph 22.51):
  - Rebates represent a reduction in the price received by the seller and are not part of the fee retained by the platform.
  - The price received by the seller must be measured net of rebate.
  - Fee recorded as received by the platform must exclude rebate amounts that fund the rebate.
  - Rebates must be re-routed to show payment from platform to seller, then seller to buyer, reducing buyer price.
- Numerical illustration (Box 7 — Example 5) — Scenario summaries with exact values:
  - Scenario 1 (no rebates)
    - Transaction: Canadian resident books taxi ride in Mexico via DIP for $10; $1 service fee from traveler to DIP; DIP charges $2 service fee to taxi driver.
    - Travel (taxi ride): Canada debit/expenditure 9; Mexico credit/revenue 9
    - Nonfinancial intermediation (explicit fee): USA credit/revenue 3 (=1+2)
    - DIP output (US national accounts) = $1 + $2 = $3
    - Output of taxi driver (Mexico) = $9
    - Final consumption expenditure (Canadian households) = $9 + $1 = $10
  - Scenario 2 (rebate of $2)
    - Rebate: waiver of $1 intermediation fee + $1 fare reduction funded by DIP.
    - Travel: Canada debit/expenditure 8; Mexico credit/revenue 8
    - Nonfinancial intermediation (explicit fee): USA credit/revenue 1 (=3-2)
    - DIP output (US national accounts) = $1
    - Output of taxi driver (Mexico) = $8
    - Final consumption expenditure (Canadian households—travel) = $8
  - Scenario 3 (rebate of $6)
    - Rebate: waiver of $1 intermediation fee + $5 fare reduction funded by DIP.
    - Travel: Canada debit/expenditure 4; Mexico credit/revenue 4
    - Nonfinancial intermediation (explicit fee): USA credit/revenue -3 (=3-6)
    - DIP output (US national accounts) = -$3
    - Output of taxi driver (Mexico) = $4
    - Final consumption expenditure (Canadian households—travel) = $4
- Interpretation:
  - DIP output or intermediation service exports/imports can be negative for specific rebate-funded transactions; negative values reflect pricing strategies and do not imply overall negative output.

### Households providing accommodation and ride-hailing services (F.7)
- Owner-occupied housing:
  - Short-term subletting via platforms requires reclassifying part of imputed owner-occupied rent as paid rent.
  - Extent depends on rental equivalence rate, duration/frequency of rentals, and additional intermediate costs.
  - Avoid double counting: a dwelling should not contribute to imputed rent and accommodation services for the same period.
- Household vehicles used for market transportation:
  - Apply split asset approach: portion reclassified from household final consumption to business investment.
  - Affects capital stock and consumption of fixed capital, not GDP level.
- Data sources: labor force and household surveys, vehicle registrations, tax filings, platform-reported earnings.

### Data sources and compilation methods (Section IV)
- Scoping and identification:
  - Identifying DIPs uses decision trees and methods such as web scraping to develop registers.
  - First distinctions: direct seller vs intermediary; whether platform facilitates transaction (booking/ordering/payment).
- Data sources:
  - Targeted surveys of identified DIPs, household surveys, business surveys, financial statements, VAT/tax returns, payment card and bank transaction data, platform-provided data, ITRS (with potential need for new transaction codes).
- Use of financial statements:
  - Reliable when DIP locally registered (Models 1 and 3); profit and loss statements and notes may contain revenue breakdowns.
  - Example (Glovoapp Technology d.o.o. Beograd) — Revenues in thousand Serbian dinars:
    - 2023 / 2022:
      - Revenue from commissions for platform usage: 1,452,501 / 939,348
      - Revenue from promotional service fees: 112,606 / 160,407
      - Revenue from delivery service usage: 74,675 / 10,701
      - Other revenue from sale of products and services: 115,326 / 66,875
      - Revenue from marketing services on the foreign market: 14,267 / 11,465
      - Total revenue: 1,769,375 / 1,188,795
- Use of tax data (example India — Box 11):
  - Fees collected by tutors = $2200; platform commission = $300; GST = 20% → GST due = $300 × 20% = ₹60.
  - Total payment by Indian residents = $2560.
  - Imported service value inferred by dividing GST by tax rate: $60/0.2 = $300.
  - Limitations: compliance gaps, registration thresholds, aggregation across services, need for data sharing with tax authorities.
- Payment data and limitations:
  - Card data provide transaction values and counterparties; intermediation fee may not be shown separately.
  - Wallets and peer-to-peer payment apps often lack merchant detail.
  - ITRS may capture related flows but often not intermediation; consider introducing distinct ITRS codes for intermediation fees.

### Survey and measurement experiences (United States, Eurostat)
- United States (BEA):
  - BEA added DIP questions to the 2022 benchmark survey and developed screener/reporting questions (Q12–Q14).
  - Two evaluated approaches:
    - Top-down: industry gross output adjusted for non-employer data and digital orders.
    - Bottom-up: use mandatory financial reports for large public firms.
  - Gross output estimate for rideshare, travel services, and food/grocery delivery services ≈ $31 billion in 2021.
  - Data collection challenges: low response rates, conceptual understanding by respondents, isolating fee-based DIPs from data/advertising platforms.
- Eurostat (September 2025 survey among Member States):
  - 13 out of 27 EU countries replied.
  - One-third of respondents do not yet compile DIP data; many developing methodologies or exploring sources.
  - Data coverage generally high (around 99 percent of known DIP turnover).
  - Common sources: direct surveys, administrative data (VAT returns, financial statements), and models.
  - Challenges: residency determination, separating implicit fees, data gaps for nonresident DIPs; demand for centralized framework and data sharing.

### Recording illustrative examples and default assumptions (Appendix II highlights & Box 4–5)
- Box 4 — Example 1 (preserve exact values):
  - Canadian resident books Cancún rental via US DIP:
    - Booking in February, stay in March; accommodation $600; $60 service fee; all payments at booking.
  - Canada BOP (February):
    - Nonfinancial intermediation (fee from traveler—to USA) Credit/Revenue 60; Debit/Expenditure -60.
    - Financial account: Other accounts receivable (vis-à-vis Mexico) 600; Currency and deposits -660; Financial account net -60.
  - Canada BOP (March):
    - Travel (accommodation in Mexico) Credit/Revenue 600; Debit/Expenditure -600.
    - Financial account: Other accounts receivable -600; Financial account net -600.
  - National accounts (Q1, Year t):
    - DIP output (USA) = $60
    - Output of the host (Mexico) = $600
    - Final consumption expenditure of Canadian households = $660
- Box 5 — Example 2 (implicit fee, amount not known but payer known):
  - Canadian resident books Cancún rental $700 via US platform. Platform pays host $600 after deducting implicit service fee; implicit traveler fee 10% = $70.
  - Canada BOP:
    - Current account -700; Travel (rental to Mexico) 630; Nonfinancial intermediation (implicit fee from traveler—to USA) 70.
  - Host pays $30 implicit fee to US DIP recorded as import in Mexico and export in USA.
- Box 5 — Example 3 (amount and payer unknown):
  - Canadian resident books New York rental $600 via US DIP; platform provides no fee details.
  - Canada BOP:
    - Current account -600; Services: Travel (rental to USA) 600.
  - Assumption: fee entirely paid by seller; host pays 12% fee = 600 × 12% = $72 (resident-resident, not recorded in Canada’s BOP).
- Default presumption where payer unknown: attribute fee entirely to seller (host) and apply example implicit fee rates used: 12%, 10%, etc., as illustrated in scenarios.

### Employee-type arrangements and classification (F.5)
- Determine employer-employee relationship per BPM7 paragraphs 12.13–12.16 and 2025 SNA paragraphs 8.28–8.38; criteria summarized in Table 3.
- Factors indicating platform is employer:
  - Remuneration based on labor input; enterprise controls what/how work is done; enterprise pays social contributions; worker entitled to benefits.
  - Accounting implications: no intermediation; customers purchase directly from platform; payments by customers may be classified as imports if platform nonresident.
- Factors indicating self-employed market producer:
  - Income function of outputs; ability to employ others; responsibility for markets and finance; ownership/rental of equipment; sole responsibility for social contributions; payment of sales tax such as VAT.
- Compilers should apply BPM7 and 2025 SNA criteria to distinguish DIP relationships from employment relationships.

### Scoping, identification, and decision tree (Box 9)
- Decision tree steps (summary):
  - Step 1: Website/app essential? No → not digital platform; Yes → Step 2.
  - Step 2: Connect users to goods/service provider? No → direct seller; Yes → Step 3.
  - Step 3: Facilitate transaction (booking/ordering/payment)? Yes → DIS (Step 4); No → Step 5.
  - Step 4: Additional revenue from advertising/referrals/direct sales? Yes → Hybrid Platform (disaggregate revenues); No → Pure DIP.
  - Step 5: Revenue only from information/comparison/redirection? Yes → Aggregator/Meta-Search (advertising/information services); No → further analysis.
- Note: Hybrid platform may be included under DIPs if intermediation value added > 50% of total output.

### Recommended compilation practices and way forward
- Strengthen cooperation among statistical offices, regulators, and tax authorities.
- Use targeted surveys of DIPs, households, and businesses; incorporate DIP modules in existing surveys.
- Leverage administrative and tax data (VAT/GST registration and returns) where applicable to infer imported intermediation services.
- Promote international collaboration to harmonize methods, share best practices, and consider centralized frameworks to collect intermediation fees from major platforms.
- Eurostat and other international groups to continue methodological work and encourage data sharing by countries hosting significant DIPs.

### Consultation questions (numbered)
1. Do you agree with first best and second-best approaches for time of recording of intermediation fees in national accounts and ESS? (Section III.E)
2. Do you agree with the proposed recommendations for recording specific transactions (explicit/implicit fees, travel classification, four-actor transactions, items other than intermediation fee) in Section III?
3. Regarding differential and dynamic pricing, including rebates by DIPs, do you agree with the proposed recording under scenarios 2 and 3, and related explanation? (Section III.F.6)
4. Are there additional issues related to the treatment of DIPs in external sector and national accounts statistics requiring further clarification?
5. Do you agree with guidance on price and volume measures of DIPs as outlined in Box 1?
6. Do you agree with recommended data sources and compilation methods in Section IV (targeted surveys, financial statements, tax data) for measuring DIP output and cross-border transactions?
7. Do you suggest including other data sources and compilation methods?
8. Any other comments or country experiences to enrich the note?

*Source: International Monetary Fund — Digital intermediation platforms (implementation guidance).*

### 1.      The proliferation of digital intermediation platforms (DIPs) such as Uber, Airbnb, Grab, Zomato,

### digital-intermediation-platforms - 1.      The proliferation of digital intermediation platforms (DIPs) such as Uber, Airbnb, Grab, Zomato,

### Overview: growth, scale, and economic impact
- Digital intermediation platforms (DIPs) leverage network effects to create multi-sided markets that deliver efficiency, convenience, and a wide array of choices across transport, accommodation, food delivery, and life-services.
- Over the past decade, DIPs have expanded rapidly in scale, users, and geographic reach, generating billions in revenues and reshaping global service markets.
- Key statistics:
  - In the United States, rideshare, accommodation, and food delivery platforms contributed at least $31 billion in gross revenue in 2021.
  - Airbnb: over 8 million listings across 220 countries serving more than 200 million users worldwide.
  - Uber: scaled operations in 70 countries with more than 180 million monthly active users.
- The global and cross-border nature of DIPs increases statistical challenges for national accounts and external sector statistics (ESS), and these challenges are expected to intensify as worldwide users climb.

### Definitions and scope under BPM7/2025 SNA
- Digital platforms supply a digital service that facilitates interactions between two or more distinct but interdependent sets of users via the internet.
- Four types of digital platforms:
  - Nonfinancial digital intermediation platforms: facilitate transactions between multiple buyers and sellers for ordering and delivery of goods, nonproduced nonfinancial assets and services for a fee or commission without taking ownership.
  - Free online platforms: facilitate noncommercial interactions or provide entertainment and information services, usually funded by advertising and data collection.
  - Financial digital platforms: intermediate funding or payment transactions for a fee.
  - Other fee-based digital platforms: facilitate interactions other than transactions in goods/nonproduced assets/services or financial transactions (e.g., online dating, matrimonial platforms).
- This paper focuses on categories (a) nonfinancial DIPs and (c) financial digital platforms.

### Classification in product frameworks (CPC Ver.3.0 and EBOPS 2026)
- In CPC Ver.3.0, nonfinancial intermediation services are consolidated under Division 85 “Support services” in four Groups:
  - Group 855 – Intermediation services on goods
  - Group 856 – Intermediation services for accommodation, food and beverage, transport and electricity, gas and water distribution services
  - Group 857 – Intermediation for community, social and personal services
  - Group 858 – Other intermediation services
- EBOPS 2026 recommends five sub-categories of nonfinancial intermediation services:
  - Category 13.1 — Intermediation services for goods
  - Category 13.2 — Intermediation services for transport services
  - Category 13.3 — Intermediation services for accommodation services
  - Category 13.4 — Intermediation services for food and beverage services
  - Category 13.5 — Other nonfinancial intermediation services
- Note: groups in CPC V 3.0 do not correspond exactly to categories in EBOPS 2026; concordances are provided in Annex 3 of MSITS 2026.

### Financial digital platforms: categories and treatment
- Financial digital platforms are classified into four main categories:
  - Peer-to-peer and other online lending platforms
  - Equity-based crowdfunding platforms
  - Philanthropic (donation-based) crowdfunding platforms
  - Reward-based crowdfunding platforms (donors expect a nonfinancial reward)
- Brokerage on financial instruments and fees related to financial digital platforms that intermediate funding or payment transactions are included in financial services (and excluded from nonfinancial intermediation services).

### Output of DIPs and consumption recording
- Output types:
  - Nonfinancial DIPs: output consists of digital intermediation services (recorded under nonfinancial intermediation services in BPM7).
  - Financial DIPs: output consists of financial services.
- Charging mechanisms: explicit or implicit fees.
- Consumption attribution scenarios (illustrated by the triangle figure):
  - If seller/producer and buyer/consumer are invoiced separately for platform services, both consume intermediation services.
  - If all fees are invoiced to the seller/producer, only the seller/producer is recorded as consuming the intermediation services.
  - If all fees are invoiced to the buyer/consumer, only the buyer/consumer is recorded as consuming the intermediation services.
- When at least one actor is resident in a different economy, transactions must be recorded in external accounts; guidance on data sources and estimation methods for compiling exports and imports of digital intermediation services is therefore relevant for ESS.

### Dependent contractors, formal vs informal
- Households receiving monetary remuneration for goods/services facilitated by DIPs are considered unincorporated household enterprises.
- If the household is not recognized as a distinct market producer and not covered by formal arrangements, it is regarded as an informal enterprise.
- For multinational enterprise groups operating DIPs across countries, the formal/informal status of dependent contractors may vary by country:
  - If dependent contractors are registered, participate in social insurance schemes, or are regulated, they are classified as formal workers.
  - If the government does not require registration or provide formal regulations/protections, dependent contractors are informal workers.

### Price and volume measurement guidance for DIPs (Box 1)
- ISIC Rev.5 creates new classes for intermediation services, e.g., class 5540 Intermediation services for accommodation and class 5640 Intermediation service activities for food and beverage activities.
- Nominal output of intermediaries is recorded on a net basis reflecting only fees and commissions retained by the DIP and not amounts distributed to underlying sellers; intermediaries may also receive advertising revenues.
- Volume measures:
  - Ideally obtained by deflating nominal values of intermediation fee and advertising revenue by separate constant-quality producer price indices (PPIs).
  - For commissions set as a percentage of underlying service value, the price index should reflect changes in both the percentage charged and prices of the underlying services for constant-quality transactions.
- Example (preserve exact values):
  - DIP charges a fee of 10% of the value of accommodation.
  - Year 1: 100,000 hotel night stays, average value $100 per night → nominal output = 100,000 * $100 * 10% = $1,000,000.
  - Year 2: 100,000 hotel night stays, average value $150 per night, same 10% fee → nominal output = 100,000 * $150 * 10% = $1,500,000.
  - If PPI considers only the percentage fee as the price, the index would not change and the full increase in output would be reflected as a volume change.
  - If PPI considers both the percentage fee and the price of the underlying service the index would rise 50% and volumes would be unchanged; measurement principles favor the latter treatment to reflect that the DIP intermediates the same number of room nights at the same properties.
- Practical compilation alternative:
  - Collect only the percentage fee from the DIP and then apply it to a nominal value adjusted by changes in a PPI for the underlying service (e.g., PPI for accommodation services).
- Sampling consideration:
  - Price index compilers should regularly refresh establishment and item samples; intervals of five or more years between new samples are likely too long to keep pace with changes in DIPs.

### Operational models of DIPs and statistical implications
- Three operational models:
  - Model 1 — Multinational with subsidiaries:
    - Headquarters in one country with resident subsidiaries/affiliates in markets where active (examples: Airbnb, Uber).
    - Subsidiaries typically contract directly with local service providers and customers; revenues and costs reported within their economies.
    - Cross-border transactions (payments to headquarters/other subsidiaries, intermediation services to nonresidents) are recorded in balance-of-payments statistics of involved countries.
  - Model 2 — Centralized headquarters with liaison or marketing offices:
    - Headquarters in one country; operations in other countries via liaison/marketing/sales offices (examples: Preply, GetYourGuide).
    - Contractual, financial, and intermediation activities are centralized at headquarters; local offices not legally responsible for contracting.
    - Compilation challenges: platform fees recorded abroad even when services consumed domestically; alternative compilation methods needed (targeted surveys, payment data, bilateral data exchanges).
  - Model 3 — Single-country operations:
    - Platforms operate only within a single country (examples: Ola Cabs in India, Foodsi in Poland).
    - All contractual and financial relationships occur between residents; revenues and costs entirely domestic.
    - Intermediation services provided to nonresidents during visits are recorded in the balance of payments as exports to the country of the traveler.
- Most financial digital platforms (e.g., GoFundMe) appear organized according to Models 2 or 3.
- Entities within a group can be solely responsible for production of intermediation services or operate as hybrids.

### Treatment of global technology/support centers
- Multinational DIPs may operate global or regional technology centers in countries different from headquarters providing software development, data management, customer support, and IT infrastructure.
- These activities do not constitute the provision of intermediation services themselves.
- Following 2025 SNA/BPM7 principles:
  - Production of intermediation services is attributed to the institutional unit that contracts service providers and customers and assumes the associated economic risks (typically headquarters or the legal subsidiary responsible for intermediation in each country).
  - Technology/support centers should be recorded as producers of IT services/back-office services, depending on the nature of transactions and contractual arrangements.

### Determining the resident producer of intermediation services in multinational DIPs (Box 2)
- Production should generally be attributed to the institutional unit that:
  - Contracts directly with buyers and sellers,
  - Establishes terms and conditions governing platform participation,
  - Receives intermediation fees or commissions,
  - Assumes principal economic risks associated with the intermediation activity,
  - Exercises primary control over the intermediation process.
- Entities providing supporting activities (software development, data processing, customer support, advertising, marketing, payment processing, administrative services) are generally producers of those supporting services, not producers of intermediation services.
- Useful indicators for compilers:
  - Legal entity identified in contracts with platform users
  - Recipient of intermediation fees and commissions
  - Merchant-of-record arrangements
  - Payment-settlement structures
  - Financial statements and tax records
  - Platform terms and conditions
  - Information obtained directly from the platform or regulatory authorities
- No single indicator is necessarily decisive; compilers should consider the overall economic substance and identify the institutional unit that bears responsibility for supplying the intermediation service.

*Prepared by Venkat Josyula, Andrew Baer, Maja Gavrilovic, Emmanuel Manolikakis, and Patrick Quill (IMF Statistics Department), Robert Leisch, Marios Papaspyrou, and Viviana Vitali (Eurostat), and Jennifer Bruner (Bureau of Economic Analysis, USA).*

### 20.        Digital intermediation platforms (DIPs) provide the infrastructure for transactions between service

### Digital intermediation platforms (DIPs)

### Definition and distinction between DIPs, aggregators/meta-search, and hybrids
- DIPs provide the infrastructure for transactions between service providers and customers, typically handle bookings or payments, and retain a commission or service fee. Their output in BOP/national accounts is the intermediation service, not the full value of the good or service exchanged. Examples include Airbnb, Uber, and Etsy.
- Aggregators and meta-search engines (such as Google Flights, Skyscanner, Trivago, Kayak, Uber car Rentals, CottagesInCanada) primarily provide information services, redirect users to another platform or provider to complete the transaction, and derive revenues from advertising fees, listing subscriptions, referral fees, click-through charges, or by selling/monetizing user data. From a statistical perspective, these activities fall under information and advertising services, not intermediation.
- Hybrid platforms combine both functions (intermediation and information/advertising). Examples cited:
  - TripAdvisor: began as review/aggregator, now allows direct booking and earns both advertising revenue and intermediation fees.
  - Booking.com: operates as a DIP (charging commissions on bookings) and as an advertiser through sponsored listings.
  - Amazon: expanded from e-tailer to marketplace providing intermediation, payment, advertising, and logistics-related services, earning fees for these services.
- Statistical implication: revenue streams of hybrids should ideally be split by function (e.g., intermediation and advertising) because they map to different service categories in BOP/national accounts; without separation there is risk of misclassification (intermediation fees vs advertising), affecting consistency and comparability of statistics.

### Allocation of revenue in hybrid platforms (Box 3) — classification principles and practical guidance
- Principle: Revenues should be classified according to the nature of the service supplied rather than the organizational structure of the platform.
- Digital intermediation services should be limited to revenues earned for facilitating transactions between buyers and sellers.
- Data sources recommended to distinguish revenue streams: platform surveys, financial statements, administrative data, or other sources.
- Examples of classification by revenue type:
  - Revenues derived from transaction commissions, booking fees, or platform access fees directly linked to facilitating transactions → record as digital intermediation services.
  - Revenues from sponsored listings, promoted placements, referral arrangements, and click-through activities → classify as advertising or information services.
  - Payment-processing charges → classify under financial services.
- Operational guidance when detailed breakdown is available:
  - Allocate revenues according to reported breakdown.
- Operational guidance when detailed breakdown is not available:
  - Identify revenues directly linked to facilitation of transactions and classify only those as digital intermediation services.
  - Identify other revenue streams separately and classify them according to economic nature whenever possible.
- For large hybrid platforms, use annual reports, notes to financial statements, tax records, administrative data, or dedicated surveys to distinguish revenues derived from intermediation services from advertising, logistics, payment services, and other activities.

### Time of recording of digital intermediation services (Section E)
- First-best approach:
  - Intermediation service should be recorded at the time the booking is confirmed, because this is when the platform performs its core economic function—bringing together buyer and seller and facilitating the transaction.
  - The subsequent provision of the intermediated good or service (e.g., transport, accommodation) should not affect the timing of the intermediation service.
  - Transactions should be recorded on an accrual basis (i.e., when services are provided).
  - Intermediation fees can be paid by buyer and/or seller at transaction time, earlier, or later; conceptually similar to other pre-payments (GN DZ.9).
  - Practical operationalization: travel data collection could request respondents to specify time of booking (accommodation), though this may be difficult to implement.
- Second-best approach (practical alternative):
  - Many DIPs recognize fee revenue in their accounts when the intermediated service/good is actually provided/delivered by the seller, not when reservation is created.
  - Aligning national accounts/BOP recording with revenue recognition practices of major DIPs may be more practical and efficient, especially for DIPs facilitating accommodation services.
  - Using business accounts where fees are recorded when the facilitated service/good is delivered may serve as a pragmatic second-best approach.
  - Any deviation from the accrual-basis (first-best) should be clearly documented in national accounts and BOP metadata.
- Cited illustrative industry practice (examples referenced):
  - Booking Holdings Annual Report 2023: “Revenues for online travel reservation services are recognized at a point in time when the Company has completed its post-booking services and the travelers begin using the arranged travel services”.
  - Similar revenue recognition practices described in Airbnb Annual Report 2025 and Expedia Annual Reports 2025.

### Examples on recording and illustrative transactions (Box 4 and Box 5)
- Box 4 — Example 1 (Canadian resident books Cancún vacation rental via DIP headquartered in USA; booking in February, stay in March; accommodation $600; $60 service fee; all payments made at booking):
  - Balance of payments of Canada (February):
    - Current account services: Nonfinancial intermediation (fee from traveler—to USA) Credit/Revenue 60; Debit/Expenditure -60.
    - Financial account: Other accounts receivable (vis-à-vis Mexico) 600; Currency and deposits -660; Financial account net -60.
  - Balance of payments of Canada (March):
    - Current account services: Travel (accommodation in Mexico) Credit/Revenue 600; Debit/Expenditure -600.
    - Financial account: Other accounts receivable (Canada financial account for March) -600; Financial account net -600.
  - National accounts recording:
    - DIP output (US national accounts for February) = $60
    - Output of the host (Mexico national accounts for March) = $600
    - NAFA/ Other accounts receivable (Canada financial account for February) = $600
    - NAFA/Currency and deposits (Canada financial account for February) = -$660
    - Other accounts receivable (Canada financial account for March) = -$600
    - Final consumption expenditure of Canadian households (Canada national accounts for February) = $60
    - Final consumption expenditure of Canadian households (Canada national accounts for March) = $600
  - Quarterly aggregation (Q1, Year t) for Canada:
    - Current account services: Nonfinancial intermediation (fee from traveler—to USA) 60; Travel (accommodation in Mexico) 600; Total current account -660.
    - Financial account: Currency and deposits -660.
    - National accounts recording (Q1, Year t): DIP output (USA) = $60; Output of the host (Mexico) = $600; Final consumption expenditure of Canadian households = $660.
- Box 5 — Examples on estimating implicit fees:
  - Example 2 (amount not known, but who pays is known):
    - Canadian resident books Cancún rental for $700 via US platform. Platform pays host $600 after deducting implicit service fee charged to host; amount includes implicit service fee charged to traveler.
    - Balance of payments current account of Canada:
      - Current account -700; Services: Travel (rental to Mexico) 630; Nonfinancial intermediation (implicit fee from traveler—to USA) 70.
    - Fee estimation assumptions:
      - Service fee paid by traveler: 10% of total booking value ($700 × 10%) = $70.
      - Platform pays $600 to host after deducting implicit service fee; host considered as receiving $630 as rental and paying an implicit fee of $30.
    - Payment of $30 service fee by Mexican host to US DIP recorded as import of nonfinancial intermediation service (debit/expenditure) in Mexican BOP and export (credit/revenue) in USA’s BOP.
  - Example 3 (amount not known and who pays also not known):
    - Canadian resident books New York rental for $600 via US DIP; platform provides no details on fees or payer.
    - Balance of payments current account of Canada:
      - Current account -600; Services: Travel (rental to USA) 600.
    - Assumptions for fee estimation:
      - In absence of information, assume fee entirely paid by seller (host) to DIP.
      - Assume host pays 12% of booking value as service fee to platform: 600 x 12% = $72.
      - As this payment from host to platform is resident-resident, it is not recorded in USA’s BOP.
      - Host is considered as receiving $600 as rental and paying an implicit fee of $72 to the platform—leaving $528 to the host.
- Appendix II referenced for additional numerical examples and a table on recording transactions involving DIPs.

### Recording rules and guidance for specific transaction types (Section F)
- Explicit vs implicit intermediation fees (Table 2 guidance):
  - Fees separately invoiced to buyer and/or seller (Explicit): Record the fees as paid from buyer and/or seller to DIP, according to the invoice.
  - Fees not separately invoiced, amount not known but who pays is known (Implicit): Estimate the fees paid from buyer and/or seller and record as paid to DIP.
  - Fees not separately invoiced, amount not known and who pays also not known (Implicit): Estimate total fees paid and record as paid by the seller to DIP.
- Estimation guidance:
  - National compilers should approximate implicit fees using assumptions based on applicable benchmarks and observed practices for different types of DIPs operating in the economy. Platforms such as Airbnb and Uber provide information on typical intermediation fees in various countries.
  - Example industry fee reference: In the USA, Airbnb charges sellers a three percent transaction fee on the value of lodging fees and buyers a fee of approximately 14 percent on the value of the stay (fee varies by price and length of stay).
- Recording of DIP transactions under travel services (F.2):
  - If DIP is resident in economy being visited: digital intermediation services included under travel debits/expenditure of the resident economy; underlying goods/services and associated intermediation services form part of travel; taxes on goods and services acquired also included under travel.
  - If DIP is resident in a third economy: digital intermediation service recorded as a nonfinancial intermediation services debit/expenditure of the resident economy.
  - If DIP is resident in traveler’s own economy: digital intermediation service is resident-to-resident and not recorded in the balance of payments.
- Transactions with four actors (seller, buyer, delivery person/dasher, and DIP) (F.3):
  - Typical example: food delivery platforms (DoorDash, Uber Eats, Deliveroo) intermediate among seller, buyer, and dasher; they also intermediate delivery service and often registered locally for regulatory/logistical reasons.
  - DIPs may offer marketing services and technical support (software, tablets, thermal bags) to both main product provider and delivery service provider.
  - Intermediation services typically explicitly charged to provider of main product (commission) and final buyer (service fees, small order fees); dashers are typically implicitly charged (difference between delivery fee collected and payment disbursed to dashers retained by platform).
  - Cross-border elements between DIPs and providers of main product are generally absent; exceptions possible when buyer is a nonresident.
- Recording of items other than intermediation fee (F.4):
  - Receipts from platforms often include county or city taxes, airport surcharges, cleaning charges, tips, driver benefit fees, etc., in addition to intermediation fee; whether items appear separately or combined depends on regulatory requirements.
  - If compilers adjust total billed amount assuming the only charge beyond the good/service is the intermediation fee, the fee will be overstated.
  - Compilers should appropriately adjust for other service charges and taxes as well.

*International Monetary Fund — Digital intermediation platforms (implementation guidance).*

### 38.        Taxes that are collected by the platform on behalf of a third party (such as a local government or

### digital-intermediation-platforms - 38.        Taxes that are collected by the platform on behalf of a third party (such as a local government or

### Taxes collected by platforms on behalf of third parties
- The IMF guidance states taxes collected by the platform on behalf of a third party (such as a local government or airport authority) are not part of the output of the digital intermediation platform (DIP).
- Such amounts should be recorded as taxes on production and on imports (specifically, taxes on goods and services that become payable as a result of production).
- In national accounts and the balance of payments, these taxes should be recorded as direct payments from the buyer to the tax authority, with the platform possibly acting only as an intermediary for collection.
- If these items are included in the total price and not separately identified/invoiced, compilers should estimate the relevant items based on consultation with the DIPs and/or tax authorities.

### Numerical example on recording of specific items (Box 6 — Example 4)
- Transaction: A Canadian resident books a vacation rental in Cancún, Mexico using a DIP (headquartered in the USA with no subsidiaries in Mexico) for $800.
- Price composition:
  - $70 DIP service charge
  - $10 cleaning fee
  - $40 county taxes
  - $5 contribution to Mexico platform workers welfare fund (NPISH)
  - $675 rental
- Further platform charge: DIP charges $45 service fee to the host.
- Balance of payments current account of Canada entries (Credit/Revenue; Debit/Expenditure):
  - Current account total: -800
  - Services — Travel (rental, cleaning fee, and taxes to Mexico): 725 (=675+10+40)
  - Services — Nonfinancial intermediation (explicit fee—to USA): 70
  - Transfer income — Other current transfers/transfers to NPISHs (to Mexico): 5
- Treatment notes:
  - Payment of $45 service fee is intermediate consumption of the Mexican host to DIP and is recorded as an import of nonfinancial intermediation service (debit/expenditure) in the Mexican BOP and export (credit/revenue) in the USA’s BOP.
  - County tax is part of payment for accommodation services and included in travel.
  - Contribution to Mexico workers welfare fund (NPISH) is not part of travel (travel covers only goods and services acquired by nonresidents during visits).

### Employee-type arrangements (F.5)
- Context: Some jurisdictions grant sellers employee-like rights (example: Uber London classifies drivers as workers providing at least the national minimum wage, holiday pay, and access to a pension scheme).
- Core statistical issue: Determine whether an employer-employee relationship (as defined in BPM7/2025 SNA) exists between the platform and the seller.
- Guidance: Apply BPM7 paragraphs 12.13–12.16 and 2025 SNA paragraphs 8.28–8.38 and use the criteria summarized in Table 3 to distinguish employees from self-employed market producers.
- Factors indicating the platform is an employer:
  - The person is remunerated on the basis of the amount of labor contributed as an input into production, irrespective of output value or profitability.
  - The enterprise has effective control on both what shall be done (the result) and how it shall be done.
  - Payment of social contributions is by the enterprise.
  - The individual is entitled to the same kind of benefits (e.g., allowances, holidays, sick leave) that the enterprise generally provides to its employees.
- Factors indicating individuals are self-employed market producers:
  - The income received by the person is a function of the value of the outputs from production for which that person is responsible.
  - The individual can employ and pay others to work for them.
  - The individual is responsible for decisions on markets, scale of operations, and finance.
  - The individual owns or rents machinery or equipment on which they work.
  - The individual is solely responsible for social contributions.
  - The individual pays a sales tax such as VAT.
- Accounting implications if employer-employee relationship exists:
  - No intermediation occurs; customers purchase directly from the platform.
  - No fees flow from the customer to the platform as a DIP, nor are fees paid or imputed by the individual worker to the platform.
  - Remuneration paid to the employee is income earned in exchange for labor contributing to the platform’s production.
  - If the platform is non-resident while the worker and customer are resident, transactions that appear domestic are cross-border: the full amount paid by the customer would be classified as imports from the economy of the platform, and earned income revenues would be shown in the BOP to the resident worker.
  - This can create asymmetries if the platform’s country treats it as a DIP while the host economy treats it as a direct service provider.
- Compilers should apply the stated criteria alongside BPM7 and 2025 SNA paragraphs to determine whether an arrangement qualifies as a DIP or as an employer-employee relationship.

### Differential and dynamic pricing, including rebates by DIPs (F.6)
- DIPs commonly apply differential and dynamic pricing (standard, surge, low-demand) algorithmically based on real-time supply and demand.
- Sellers agree via participation agreements to pricing models, commissions, and policies; sellers decide whether to accept particular service requests.
- Promotional rebates reduce the effective transaction price for buyers; funding differs by sector:
  - Ride-hailing: discounts mostly funded by the platform.
  - Accommodation platforms (e.g., Airbnb): rebates generally provided by hosts, although the platform may occasionally contribute.
- Financial reporting: expenses relating to rebates are generally recorded as sales or marketing expenses.
- BPM7 paragraph 16.47/2025 SNA paragraph 22.51 guidance on rebates:
  - Rebates represent a reduction in the price of goods, nonproduced nonfinancial assets, and services supplied by the seller and are not part of the fee retained by the platform for intermediation services.
  - The price received by the seller must be measured by the net price after the rebate.
  - The fee recorded as received by the platform must exclude the amount that funds the rebates.
  - The rebate payment must be re-routed to show it is paid by the platform to the seller and then paid by the seller to the buyer, reducing the payer’s price.
- Numerical illustration (Box 7 — Example 5) — Scenario summaries:
  - Scenario 1 (no rebates)
    - Transaction: Canadian resident books taxi ride in Mexico via DIP for $10; includes $1 service fee from traveler to DIP; DIP charges $2 service fee to taxi driver.
    - Balance of payments recording (selected entries):
      - Travel (taxi ride): Canada debit/expenditure 9; Mexico credit/revenue 9
      - Nonfinancial intermediation (explicit fee): USA credit/revenue 3 (=1+2)
    - National accounts recording:
      - DIP output (US national accounts) = $1 + $2 = $3
      - Output of taxi driver (Mexico) = $9
      - Intermediate consumption of taxi driver (Mexico) = $2
      - Final consumption expenditure (Canadian households—travel and intermediation services) = $9 + $1 = $10
  - Scenario 2 (rebate of $2)
    - Rebate composition: full waiver of $1 intermediation fee + $1 reduction in fare.
    - Based on guidance:
      - Price for taxi ride received by driver = original price (9) – rebate (1) = 8
      - Fee received by DIP excludes amount that funds rebates; DIP funds buyer intermediation fee of $1 + fare of $1, so DIP output measured excluding this $2.
      - Rebate re-routing: $1 payment from DIP to driver, followed by driver to traveler.
    - Recorded outcomes:
      - Travel (taxi ride): Canada debit/expenditure 8; Mexico credit/revenue 8
      - Nonfinancial intermediation (explicit fee): USA credit/revenue 1 (=3-2)
      - National accounts:
        - DIP output (US national accounts) = $3 (scenario 1) - amount that funds rebates ($2) = $1
        - Output of taxi driver (Mexico) = $9 (scenario 1) - rebate funded by DIP ($1) = $8
        - Intermediate consumption of taxi driver (Mexico) = $2 (scenario 1) - rebate funded by DIP ($1) = $1
        - Final consumption expenditure (Canadian households—travel) = $9 - $1 = $8
  - Scenario 3 (rebate of $6)
    - Rebate composition: full waiver of $1 intermediation fee + $5 reduction in fare.
    - Based on guidance:
      - Price for taxi ride received by driver = original price (9) – rebate (5) = 4
      - DIP output = $3 (scenario 1) - amount that funds rebates ($6) = -$3
      - Rebate re-routing: $5 payment from DIP to driver, followed by driver to traveler.
    - Recorded outcomes:
      - Travel (taxi ride): Canada debit/expenditure 4; Mexico credit/revenue 4
      - Nonfinancial intermediation (explicit fee): USA credit/revenue -3 (=3-6)
      - National accounts:
        - DIP output (US national accounts) = $3 - $6 = -$3
        - Output of taxi driver (Mexico) = $9 - $5 = $4
        - Intermediate consumption of taxi driver (Mexico) = $2 - $5 = -$3
        - Final consumption expenditure (Canadian households—travel) = $9 - $5 = $4
- Interpretation and practice:
  - Output of DIP/nonfinancial intermediation services exports/imports may become negative for specific rebate-based transactions.
  - Negative output in specific transactions does not imply overall DIP output is negative; it reflects pricing and market-expansion strategies.
  - Dynamic pricing can offset discounted-transaction losses through higher fees in other scenarios (e.g., surge pricing) and other revenue-generating activities.
  - Conceptual consistency: free or discounted products supplied by market producers are treated as bundled with other revenue-generating products (see BPM7 paragraphs 16.52-16.61/2025 SNA paragraphs 22.56-22.65).

### Households providing accommodation and ride-hailing/rental car services (F.7)
- Owner-occupied housing services are recorded via an imputation known as owner-occupied rent; when homeowners sublet properties short-term via digital platforms, part of imputed rent should be reclassified as paid rent.
- The extent of adjustment depends on:
  - The rental equivalence rate used to estimate imputed rent,
  - The duration and frequency of short-term rental activity,
  - Additional intermediate costs incurred in renting (cleaning, internet, service fees, supplies).
- Compilers must ensure no double counting: the same dwelling should not simultaneously contribute to both imputed rent and accommodation services for the same period.
- Short-term rental administrative data (e.g., platform-reported earnings) can improve estimates of imputed rent and provide granularity on rental prices and intermediate costs.
- When household vehicles are used for market-based transportation services:
  - A split asset approach is required: portion reclassified from household final consumption to business investment.
  - Imputations/methodologies are needed to estimate split assets.
  - This reclassification does not impact GDP but affects capital stock and productivity measures because capital stock and consumption of fixed capital must be accurately reflected.
- Data sources: labor force and household surveys remain useful; administrative sources such as vehicle registrations, tax filings, and platform-reported earnings now complement surveys with improved granularity and timeliness.

### Data sources and compilation methods — scoping survey to identify DIPs (IV.A)
- Identifying DIPs is not always straightforward; countries use different approaches to prepare lists of DIPs for surveys and measurement.
- Examples of approaches:
  - Web scraping to develop a register of DIPs (example: Statistics Netherlands).
  - Other big data/web-scraping approaches (example: Statistics Indonesia referenced).
- Risk without a decision tree: nonfinancial intermediation services provided by DIPs may be misclassified under other service categories (transportation, accommodation).
- First distinctions for identifying DIPs:
  - Whether the platform functions primarily as a direct seller of its own goods/services or intermediates between independent parties.
  - Whether the platform actively facilitates the transaction (booking, ordering, payment). Platforms that do so provide a digital intermediation service (DIS) — either as pure DIPs (all revenue from intermediation) or hybrid platforms (additional revenue from advertising, referrals, direct sales).
  - Platforms that only provide information, comparison, or redirection (e.g., meta-search engines) are classified under advertising or referral services.
- The IMF guidance recommends a decision tree to identify DIPs while allowing countries to adapt steps to domestic characteristics of digital platforms.

*IMF guidance on accounting and statistical treatment of digital intermediation platforms as presented in the chapter.*

### Box 9. Decision Tree for Identifying DIPs

### Box 9. Decision Tree for Identifying DIPs

### Decision tree steps for identifying digital intermediation platforms (DIPs)
- Step 1: Does the business have a website or app that is essential to its operations?
  - No → Not a digital platform.
  - Yes → Go to Step 2.
- Step 2: Does the business connect a direct user (B2C) or another business (B2B) to a goods/service provider or seller?
  - No → The business is a direct seller (e.g., Apple Store, Netflix). Classify as a direct retailer or service provider.
  - Yes → Go to Step 3.
- Step 3: Does the platform facilitate the actual transaction, including booking, ordering, or payment, on its platform?
  - Yes → The platform provides a Digital Intermediation Service (DIS). Go to Step 4 to check for hybrid models.
  - No → The platform provides a different service. Go to Step 5.
- Step 4: Does the platform also generate revenue from other sources, such as advertising, referrals, or direct sales?
  - Yes → The platform is a Hybrid Platform. Its revenue must be disaggregated into:
    - DIS (commission from intermediated transactions)
    - Advertising/information Services (from clicks/referrals)
    - Other services (e.g., direct sales)
  - No → The platform is a pure Digital Intermediation Platform (DIP) (e.g., Uber, Airbnb). All revenue is classified as DIS.
- Step 5: Does the platform generate revenue by only providing information, comparison, or redirection to external providers?
  - Yes → The platform is an Aggregator/Meta-Search Engine. All revenue is classified as an advertising or information service (e.g., Skyscanner, Google Flights).
  - No → The platform does not fit into these categories. Further analysis is needed.

- Note: A hybrid platform may be included under DIPs provided that the value added from intermediation services is more than 50 percent of the total output of the platform.

### Survey-based estimation of DIP output and exports
- Targeted surveys of identified DIPs are recommended to estimate output and exports; indicative survey questions are presented in Appendix IV.
- Surveys are designed to separate the intermediation function of DIPs from underlying services provided by sellers (e.g., cab rides, accommodation, food delivery).
- Survey approaches:
  - Incorporate questions into existing enterprise surveys, international trade in services surveys, or develop dedicated digital intermediation surveys.
  - Adapt and refine questions to reflect country-specific institutional arrangements, business practices, and data requirements while maintaining consistency with international statistical standards.
- Example: Statistics Netherlands implemented a survey approach for collecting data on DIPs (see Box 10).

### Use of financial statements to estimate output and exports of intermediation services
- Financial statements can be a reliable data source when a DIP is locally registered (Models 1 and 3); sources include tax authorities, regulators, business registry agencies, or DIPs directly.
- Profit and loss statements typically reflect revenues and expenditures related to sale and acquisition of underlying goods and services; notes may provide revenue breakdowns by service type.
- Common charging practices:
  - DIPs generally charge a percentage of the value of the product intermediated as commission from buyer and/or seller.
  - In some cases, DIPs replace percentage-based commission with a fixed platform access fee (example: Ola cabs in India replaced per-trip commissions with a fixed daily platform access fee from sellers/drivers). Such flat fees should be included as part of intermediation services output.
- Compilers should carefully allocate hybrid platform revenues into respective service categories.

- Example revenue data (Table 4) for a food and beverage services intermediating platform operating in a single country (Glovoapp Technology d.o.o. Beograd) — Revenues of the DIP (in thousand Serbian dinars):
  - 2023 / 2022
  - Revenue from sale of products and services on the domestic market:
    - Revenue from commissions for platform usage: 1,452,501 / 939,348
    - Revenue from promotional service fees: 112,606 / 160,407
    - Revenue from delivery service usage: 74,675 / 10,701
    - Other revenue from sale of products and services: 115,326 / 66,875
    - Revenue from marketing services on the foreign market: 14,267 / 11,465
    - Total revenue: 1,769,375 / 1,188,795

- Consolidated group-level reporting (Models 1 examples: Grab, Uber) aggregates revenue across countries and product lines (e.g., deliveries, mobility, financial services). Local authorities may maintain separate records capturing DIPs revenues within their jurisdiction.
- When local surveys are unavailable, country-level estimates can be derived from group reports using proxies such as number of completed trips, gross booking values, or active users by country.

- Estimating residency of users:
  - Financial statements often lack residency details for users; compilers may apply proxies to derive resident vs nonresident consumption shares.
  - Practical indicators: country code of user’s registered phone number and issuing country of the credit/debit card or bank account used.
    - Products booked with a local phone number and paid with a domestic card can be attributed to residents.
    - Products linked to foreign phone numbers or foreign-issued cards can be treated as nonresident usage.
  - Limitations: residents may retain foreign numbers, visitors may use local numbers or cash; nonetheless, these indicators provide a robust basis for revenue allocation. Compilers may request aggregate percentages in enterprise/ICT surveys.

### Use of tax data to estimate imports of digital intermediation services and DIP output
- Where tax applies to digital intermediation services consumed by resident households from nonresident DIPs, tax returns can be a direct and reliable data source on the value of imported digital intermediation services.
- Example design (India): foreign platforms supplying OIDAR services (includes DIPs) to domestic consumers must register with tax authorities and collect GST when the consumer is not registered for GST (B2C). The tax applies to the digital intermediation or digital content, not the underlying service.
- Tax returns typically report the taxable base as the platform’s service charge/commission.

- Box 11 numerical example: Derivation of Imported Digital Intermediation Services from Tax Data
  - Several Indian residents access foreign language instruction through a U.S.-based DIP that connects them with tutors abroad.
  - Fees collected by tutors (educational services, tax-exempt) = $2200
  - Platform commission (digital service, taxable) = $300
  - GST rate applicable on intermediation services = 20%
  - DIP charges GST on its own service (GST due) = $300 × 20% = ₹60.
  - Total payment by Indian residents to DIP = $2560
  - DIP declares this amount in its GST return and remits the amount to the Indian tax authorities. For compiling national accounts/BOP, statistical agencies can infer the value of the imported digital intermediation service by dividing the GST paid by the tax rate.
    - Imported service value = $60/0.2 = $300.
  - Aggregating such data across non-resident platforms can produce an estimate of the total value of digital intermediation services imported by India.
  - If the tax is applicable to underlying services, the DIP will collect and remit GST on those services as well.

- Limitations of tax data:
  - Compliance gaps and registration thresholds may leave transactions unrecorded.
  - Tax reporting is often aggregate and may combine DIPs with other digital services (e.g., streaming), creating classification challenges.
  - If tax applies to underlying services, total tax receipts will combine intermediation and underlying service values.
  - Effective use requires data-sharing arrangements with tax authorities and supplements from targeted surveys or other administrative sources.

### Surveys of households and businesses
- Household surveys:
  - Collect how households interact with platforms (e.g., Uber, Airbnb, DoorDash, Etsy) when buying or selling goods and services.
  - Cover household consumption of digital intermediation services (domestic consumption and imports) and revenue from supplying goods/services via platforms.
  - Help measure household participation, spending and earning patterns, and ensure accurate reflection in national accounts and ESS.
- Business surveys:
  - Gather information from resident businesses (accommodation, transport, food services) on their use of platforms (e.g., Booking.com, Uber Eats, Zomato).
  - Collect data on revenues from sales, fees paid to DIPs, and residency of counterparties.
  - Improve measurement of digital intermediation services consumed by businesses (domestic consumption and imports).
- Indicative survey questions for households and businesses are provided in Appendices V and VI and can be incorporated into existing surveys or developed as dedicated modules.

### Other data sources and practical measurement considerations
- Credit/debit card, ITRS, and payment app data:
  - Bank transaction data can provide cardholder and counterpart country/DIP and total transaction value; intermediation fee may not be shown separately but can be estimated by classifying transactions by DIP and applying appropriate intermediation ratios.
  - Platform-provided data (e.g., Uber, Grab, Airbnb) are preferred where available because they include transaction value, intermediation service value, and counterpart country.
- Wallet-based applications (Apple Pay, Google Pay) often record only transfers to the wallet provider without merchant details; platform owners may hold the underlying merchant information but typically do not publish/share it for statistics.
- Peer-to-peer or phone number–based payment apps (Zelle, Venmo, mobile money) have limited availability/usefulness for statistical purposes.
- ITRS records may capture transactions between multinational DIPs and subsidiaries, but these often relate to computer services, advertising, audiovisual services, etc., not intermediation services; consider introducing distinct ITRS transaction codes to differentiate service types.
- For countries relying on ITRS for BOP compilation, introducing a new BOP item in ITRS could capture cases where DIP users are charged a separate fee, though user reporting thresholds and transaction nature may limit occurrences. Further estimation beyond ITRS would require information from nonresident service providers.

### Experience from the United States on measuring DIPs
- The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) has initiated new data collections to capture DIP activities via:
  - Activities of Multinational Enterprises (AMNE) surveys.
  - International trade in services surveys.
- BEA maintains a list of active digital intermediation platforms and periodically cross-references it with BEA’s survey universe to include DIPs in sampling frames.
- AMNE survey actions:
  - 2019 Benchmark Survey of United States Direct Investment Abroad included questions on value of sales or gross operating revenue for digital intermediation services for U.S. MNE parents and their foreign affiliates.
  - 2022 Benchmark Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States collected information on digital intermediation services.
- Data collection challenges:
  - Low response rates for specialized segments such as DIPs, despite outreach efforts.
  - Difficulty communicating the concept of digital intermediation services to respondents; misreporting occurred when companies reported sales where they directly provided goods/services rather than intermediation.
  - Isolating fee-based DIPs from data- or advertising-driven online platforms that should be classified as “other online operators” posed reporting issues.

*Source: International Monetary Fund — Box 9. Decision Tree for Identifying DIPs and related sections on measurement and data sources.*

### 79.        When BEA added questions about digital intermediation services to its 2022 benchmark survey of

### digital-intermediation-platforms

### A. BEA survey changes and measurement approaches
- BEA added questions about digital intermediation services to its 2022 benchmark survey of transactions in selected services and intellectual property; it adjusted language to more clearly define DIPs and added a screener question to help companies self-identify as DIPs.
- Screener and reporting questions (Box 12):
  - Q12. Does your company operate a digital intermediary platform(s)? Yes – Continue. No – Skip.
  - Q13. Report the value of sales of digital intermediation services to foreign persons … Reported sales should include fees and commissions only, and not the value of the goods or services sold on the platform. $ _______________
  - Q14. Which of the service types listed in [the main sales schedule] include sales of digital intermediation services reported in Question 13. _________________ (drop-down option that includes all service types covered by the survey)
- Two measurement approaches evaluated in a BEA working paper for rideshare, travel services, and food/grocery delivery services:
  - Top-down approach:
    - Start with overall gross output for the relevant industry (e.g., taxi services industry NAICS 48531 for rideshare).
    - Remove output attributable to drivers using non-employer data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
    - Isolate portion attributable to digital orders using Census data showing revenue from electronic sources.
    - Estimate and remove output from digital orders originating from a taxi company’s website or app to leave digital intermediation services output.
  - Bottom-up approach:
    - Use revenue from mandatory public financial reports for publicly owned companies.
    - Preferable when digital intermediation services are provided by only a few large, public firms (such as rideshare).
    - Will underestimate services provided by smaller companies that do not have financial reports online (such as business-related travel services).
- Using these approaches, gross output for digital intermediation services for rideshare, travel services, and food/grocery delivery services was estimated to be around $31 billion in 2021.

### B. European measurement efforts (Eurostat survey)
- Eurostat conducted a comprehensive survey among Member States in September 2025 to gather practices, data sources, challenges, and opportunities in identifying and measuring DIPs.
- Survey participation and coverage:
  - A total of 13 out of 27 EU countries replied to the survey conducted in September 2025.
  - One-third of the respondents do not yet compile data on transactions related to DIPs; however, they are in the process of developing a methodology and/or exploring new data sources to do so.
  - Data coverage (approximate percentage of known turnover of all DIPs resident in a country) is generally high (around 99 percent).
- Common compilation perspectives and data sources:
  - Three perspectives: country of the DIP’s residence, country of the seller, and country of the buyer.
  - Most common approaches: direct surveys, administrative data, and estimates/models.
  - Administrative sources used for resident DIPs include VAT returns and financial statements; for seller/buyer roles, compilers may rely on direct surveys of businesses, households, or individuals.
  - Frequency of data collection varies: monthly, quarterly, or annually.
- Methods to distinguish transaction categories:
  - Compilers are generally able to distinguish underlying transaction categories (goods, services, nonproduced nonfinancial assets) by analyzing business model and industry of each DIP.
  - Proxy indicators used: average commission rates, card payment data, platform fees, linking seller surveys with commission rates, exports, and partner data.
- Identified challenges and common practices:
  - Primary obstacles: lack of dedicated DIP data sources, difficulties applying residency rules for global platforms, and separating service fees from other transactions when fees are implicitly charged.
  - Many Member States implement checks and adjustments to address potential double-counting and use estimation/modeling techniques to overcome data gaps.
  - There is demand for a centralized framework to standardize collection of intermediation fees from major platforms to enhance accuracy and comparability.
- Eurostat actions and encouragements:
  - Eurostat will continue addressing DIPs in working groups like the Balance of Payments Working Group (BOPWG) and International Trade in Services Statistics Working Group (ITSS WG).
  - Provide methodological guidance if needed, encourage Member States to present best practices for compiling relevant transactions based on BPM7 standards, and ask countries that host important DIPs to share information and data with relevant counterpart economies.

### C. Recording transactions and illustrative scenarios (Appendix II highlights)
- Recording principles illustrated with explicit and implicit fee examples; selected scenario summaries:
  - Scenario 1(i): Canadian resident books NYC rental for $600 via DIP headquartered in USA; DIP charges $60 to traveler and $30 to host. Canada current account entry: -660 (Travel (rental to USA+ explicit intermediation fee to USA) 660 (600+60)). Payment of $30 by host is resident-resident and not recorded in Canada’s BOP.
  - Scenario 1(iii): Canadian resident books Cancún rental for $700 via DIP headquartered in USA with no Mexico subsidiaries; DIP charges $70 to traveler and $35 to host. Canada current account entry: -770 (Travel (rental to Mexico) 700; Nonfinancial intermediation (explicit fee—to USA) 70). Payment of $35 by host to DIP recorded as import of nonfinancial intermediation service in Mexico and export in USA.
  - Scenario 1(v): Canadian resident books Orlando rental for $4000 via DIP headquartered in the Netherlands with no subsidiaries in USA or Canada; DIP charges $400 to traveler and $200 to host. Canada current account entry: -4400 (Travel (rental to USA) 4000; Nonfinancial intermediation (explicit fee from traveler—to Netherlands) 400). Payment of $200 from host to DIP should be recorded in the BOPs of USA and Netherlands.
  - Scenario 2(i) (implicit fee): Canadian resident books NYC rental for $600 via DIP headquartered in USA where implicit fees apply; assumed service fee by traveler 10% ($60) and service fee by host $40. Canada current account entry: -600 (Travel (rental to USA+ implicit fee from traveler to USA) 600 (540+60)). The $40 implicit fee from host to platform is resident-resident and not recorded in Canada’s BOP.
  - Scenario 2(ii) (implicit fee): Canadian resident books Cancún rental for $700 via DIP headquartered in USA; assumed service fee by traveler 10% ($70) and implicit host fee $30. Canada current account entry: -700 (Travel (rental to Mexico) 630; Nonfinancial intermediation (implicit fee from traveler—to USA) 70). Payment of $30 by Mexican host to US DIP recorded as import in Mexican BOP and export in USA’s BOP.

### D. Challenges in compiling DIP statistics
- Difficulties in determining residency of DIPs when they have subsidiaries or only local offices; unclear whether local offices suffice to consider platforms resident.
- Survey respondents may not know/remember the value of explicit fees and other items even if separately available.
- Rerouting of payments and fees retained by DIPs may require unavailable data, making assumptions necessary.
- Financial statements of DIPs often do not permit identification of geographic perspectives of transactions.
- Growth of informal household enterprises facilitated by DIPs may be missing from business registers and standard statistical sources.
- Rapid growth of small external transactions in goods and services may fall below minimum thresholds for customs duties and documentation requirements.
- Source data on DIPs with no local presence is not easily available; compilers may need to rely on tax data and information sharing between NSOs/central banks at the firm level.
- Data sharing can be legally constrained by national legislation.

### E. Way forward and recommended actions
- Strengthened cooperation among statistical offices, regulators, and tax authorities to help close data gaps.
- Use of surveys of households, businesses, and DIPs to enhance measurement of digital intermediation services.
- International collaboration to harmonize methods, share best practices, and effectively capture DIPs’ operations.
- Eurostat to continue methodological work, encourage best-practice sharing, and seek data sharing from countries hosting significant DIPs.
- Demand for a centralized framework to standardize collection of intermediation fees from major platforms to improve comparability.

### F. Questions for global consultation (numbered)
1. Do you agree with first best and second-best approaches for the time of recording of intermediation fees in national accounts and external sector statistics? (section III.E)
2. Do you agree with the proposed recommendations for recording specific transactions (e.g., explicit and implicit intermediation fee, recording of DIP transactions under travel services, recording of DIP transactions with four actors, recording of specific items other than intermediation fee), involving DIPs as outlined in Section III?
3. Regarding the case of differential and dynamic pricing, including rebates by DIPs, do you agree with the proposed recording of rebates under scenarios 2 and 3, and related explanation? (Section III.F.6)
4. Are there any additional issues related to the treatment of DIPs in external sector and national accounts statistics that require further clarification?
5. Do you agree with the guidance on price and volume measures of DIPs as outlined in Box 1?
5. Do you agree with the recommended data sources and compilation methods in Section IV (e.g., targeted surveys, financial statements, tax data) for measuring the output of DIPs and associated cross-border transactions?
6. Do you suggest including any other data sources and compilation methods?
7. Do you have any other comments, or country experiences that could be shared to enrich the note?

*Source: IMF technical note on measuring digital intermediation platforms (excerpts).*

### 3. The amount is not known and who pays the fees is also not known

### 3. The amount is not known and who pays the fees is also not known

### Overview of recommended treatment
- In scenarios where the booking amount is known but neither the amount of the intermediation fee nor who pays the fee (buyer and/or seller) is known, the recommendation is:
  - Estimate the total fees paid and record them as paid by the seller (host) to the digital intermediation platform (DIP).

### Scenario (i): Canadian resident books NYC rental for $600 (platform headquartered in USA)
- Recorded entries in Canada’s balance of payments current account:
  - Current account
    -600
      Credit/Revenue Debit/Expenditure
      Services
      Travel (rental to USA)  600
- Assumptions for fee estimation:
  - In the absence of information on who pays the fees, assume the fee is entirely paid by the seller (host) to the DIP.
  - Host pays 12% of booking value as service fee to the platform: 600 x 12% = $72.
  - The $72 payment from host to platform is a resident-resident transaction (host and Canadian resident host? — as specified) and is not recorded in the balance of payments.
- Implications:
  - Traveler payment recorded as import of travel services for Canada: $600.
  - Host effectively receives $600 as rental and pays an implicit fee of $72 to the platform—leaving $528 to the host.

### Scenario (ii): Canadian resident books Cancún rental for $700 (platform headquartered in USA, no Mexican subsidiaries)
- Recorded entries in Canada’s balance of payments current account:
  - Current account
    -700
      Credit/Revenue Debit/Expenditure
      Services
      Travel (rental to Mexico)  700
- Assumptions for fee estimation:
  - In the absence of information on who pays the fees, assume the fee is entirely paid by the seller (Mexican host) to the DIP.
  - Host pays 10% of booking value as service fee to the platform: 700 x 10% = $70.
  - This implicit fee from host to platform is recorded in Mexico’s balance of payments as import of Nonfinancial intermediation services from USA.
- Implications:
  - Traveler payment recorded as import of travel services for Canada: $700.
  - Mexican host receives $700 as rental and pays an implicit fee of $70 to the platform—leaving $630 to the host.

### Scenario (iii): Canadian resident books Toronto rental for $1000 (platform headquartered in USA, no Canadian subsidiary)
- Recorded treatment:
  - The $1000 rental is a resident-resident transaction and is not recorded in the balance of payments of Canada but is recorded in the national accounts.
  - Current account
    -100
      Credit/Revenue Debit/Expenditure
      Services
      Nonfinancial intermediation (implicit fee from host—to USA) 100
- Assumptions for fee estimation:
  - In the absence of information on who pays the fees, assume the fee is entirely paid by the seller (Canadian host) to the DIP.
  - Host pays 10% of booking value as service fee to the platform: 1000 x 10% = $100.
  - This implicit fee from host to platform is recorded in Canada’s balance of payments as import of nonfinancial intermediation services from USA.

### Scenario (iv): Canadian resident books Orlando rental for $4000 (platform headquartered in Netherlands, no USA or Canada subsidiaries)
- Recorded entries in Canada’s balance of payments current account:
  - Current account
    -4000
      Credit/Revenue Debit/Expenditure
      Services
      Travel (rental to USA)  4000
- Assumptions for fee estimation:
  - In the absence of information on who pays the fees, assume the fee is entirely paid by the seller (US host) to the DIP.
  - Host pays 10% of booking value as service fee to the platform: 4000 x 10% = $400.
  - This implicit fee from US host to Netherlands platform is recorded in USA’s balance of payments as import of nonfinancial intermediation services from Netherlands.
- Implications:
  - Traveler payment recorded as import of travel services for Canada: $4000.
  - US host receives $4000 as rental and pays an implicit fee of $400 to the platform—leaving $3600 to the host.

### Key operational assumptions illustrated by the scenarios
- Default presumption: where payer of fee is unknown, attribute the fee entirely to the seller (host).
- Typical implicit fee rates used in examples: 12% (scenario i), 10% (scenarios ii, iii, iv).
- Recording conventions:
  - Payments recorded as imports of travel services for the traveler’s economy when the booking is cross-border.
  - Implicit fees paid by nonresident hosts are recorded in the host country’s balance of payments as imports of nonfinancial intermediation services from the platform’s country.
  - Resident-resident bookings are excluded from the balance of payments and treated in the national accounts, with any implicit fee to a nonresident platform recorded as an import of nonfinancial intermediation services.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/data/statistics/bpm6/implementation-support/digital-intermediation-platforms.pdf_