IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/restud/v72y2005i4p947-972.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Market Provision of Broadcasting: A Welfare Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Simon P. Anderson
  • Stephen Coate

Abstract

This paper presents a theory of the market provision of broadcasting and uses it to address the nature of market failure in the industry. Equilibrium advertising levels may be too low or too high, depending on the nuisance cost to viewers, the substitutability of programmes, and the expected benefits to advertisers from contacting viewers. The equilibrium amount of programming may also be below or above the socially optimal level. Perhaps surprisingly, the ability to price programming may reduce social surplus, while monopoly ownership may increase it. Copyright 2005, Wiley-Blackwell.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon P. Anderson & Stephen Coate, 2005. "Market Provision of Broadcasting: A Welfare Analysis," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 72(4), pages 947-972.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:restud:v:72:y:2005:i:4:p:947-972
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/0034-6527.00357
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Spence, 1976. "Product Selection, Fixed Costs, and Monopolistic Competition," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 43(2), pages 217-235.
    2. Mark Armstrong, 2006. "Competition in two‐sided markets," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 668-691, September.
    3. Robert Ekelund & George Ford & John Jackson, 1999. "Is Radio Advertising a Distinct Local Market? An Empirical Analysis," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 14(3), pages 239-256, May.
    4. Gene M. Grossman & Carl Shapiro, 1984. "Informative Advertising with Differentiated Products," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 51(1), pages 63-81.
    5. Simon P. Anderson & Stephen Coate, 2000. "Market Provision of Public Goods: The Case of Broadcasting," NBER Working Papers 7513, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Avinash Dixit & Victor Norman, 1978. "Advertising and Welfare," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 9(1), pages 1-17, Spring.
    7. Jean Gabszewicz & Didier Laussel & Nathalie Sonnac, 1999. "TV-Broadcasting Competition and Advertising," Working Papers 99-72, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    8. Cornes,Richard & Sandler,Todd, 1996. "The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Club Goods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521477185.
    9. Wright, Donald J, 1994. "Television Advertising Regulation and Program Quality," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 70(211), pages 361-367, December.
    10. Esther Gal‐Or & Anthony Dukes, 2003. "Minimum Differentiation in Commercial Media Markets," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(3), pages 291-325, September.
    11. repec:syd:wpaper:178 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Jack H. Beebe, 1977. "Institutional Structure and Program Choices in Television Markets," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 91(1), pages 15-37.
    13. Marc Rysman, 2004. "Competition Between Networks: A Study of the Market for Yellow Pages," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 71(2), pages 483-512.
    14. Donald J. Wright, 1994. "Television Advertising Regulation and Program Quality," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 70(211), pages 361-367, December.
    15. Allan Brown & Martin Cave, 1992. "The Economics of Television Regulation: A Survey with Application to Australia," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 68(4), pages 377-394, December.
    16. Julian Wright, 2002. "Access Pricing under Competition: An Application to Cellular Networks," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(3), pages 289-315, September.
    17. Steven T. Berry & Joel Waldfogel, 1999. "Free Entry and Social Inefficiency in Radio Broadcasting," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(3), pages 397-420, Autumn.
    18. Massimo Motta & Michele Polo, 1997. "Concentration and public policies in the broadcasting industry: the future of television," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 12(25), pages 294-334.
    19. Carl Shapiro, 1980. "Advertising and Welfare: Comment," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 11(2), pages 749-752, Autumn.
    20. Brown, Allan & Cave, Martin, 1992. "The Economics of Television Regulation: A Survey with Application to Australia," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 68(203), pages 377-394, December.
    21. Hansen, Claus Thustrup & Kyhl, Soren, 2001. "Pay-per-view broadcasting of outstanding events: consequences of a ban," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(3-4), pages 589-609, March.
    22. Jean-Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2003. "Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(4), pages 990-1029, June.
    23. Doyle, Chris, 1998. "Programming in a competitive broadcasting market: entry, welfare and regulation," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 23-39, March.
    24. N. Gregory Mankiw & Michael D. Whinston, 1986. "Free Entry and Social Inefficiency," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(1), pages 48-58, Spring.
    25. Michael Spence & Bruce Owen, 1977. "Television Programming, Monopolistic Competition, and Welfare," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 91(1), pages 103-126.
    26. Peter O. Steiner, 1952. "Program Patterns and Preferences, and the Workability of Competition in Radio Broadcasting," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 66(2), pages 194-223.
    27. Cancian, Maria & Bills, Angela & Bergstrom, Theodore, 1995. "Hotelling Location Problems with Directional Constraints: An Application to Television News Scheduling," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(1), pages 121-124, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anderson, Simon P. & Gabszewicz, Jean J., 2006. "The Media and Advertising: A Tale of Two-Sided Markets," Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, in: V.A. Ginsburgh & D. Throsby (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 18, pages 567-614, Elsevier.
    2. Simon P. Anderson & Stephen Coate, 2000. "Market Provision of Public Goods: The Case of Broadcasting," NBER Working Papers 7513, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Simon P. Anderson, 2005. "Regulation of Television advertising," Virginia Economics Online Papers 363, University of Virginia, Department of Economics.
    4. Simon P. Anderson & Bruno Jullien, 2015. "The advertising-financed business model in two-sided media markets," Post-Print hal-02866192, HAL.
    5. Hans Jarle Kind & Tore Nilssen & Lars Sørgard, 2007. "Competition for Viewers and Advertisers in a TV Oligopoly," Journal of Media Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 211-233.
    6. Lapo Filistrucchi & Andrea Mangani & Luigi Luini, 2012. "Banning Ads from Prime-Time State TV: Lessons from France," Working Papers 12-23, NET Institute.
    7. Ramon Casadesus-Masanell & Feng Zhu, 2009. "Strategies to Fight Ad-sponsored Rivals," Working Papers 09-09, NET Institute, revised Sep 2009.
    8. Christian Jansen, 2003. "Convergence and the Potential Ban on Interactive Product Placement in Germany," Law and Economics 0302002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Feng Zhu, 2008. "Ad-sponsored Business Models and Compatibility Incentives of Social Networks," Working Papers 08-20, NET Institute, revised Sep 2008.
    10. Susanne Kremhelmer & Hans Zenger, 2004. "Advertising and the Media," Industrial Organization 0403003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Mangani, Andrea, 2003. "Profit and audience maximization in broadcasting markets," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 305-315, September.
    12. Marco Antonielli & Lapo Filistrucchi, 2011. "Collusion and the political differentiation of newspapers," Working Papers 11-26, NET Institute, revised Nov 2011.
    13. Ramon Casadesus-Masanell & Feng Zhu, 2010. "Strategies to Fight Ad-Sponsored Rivals," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(9), pages 1484-1499, September.
    14. Nilssen,T. & Sorgard,L., 2001. "The TV industry : advertising and programming," Memorandum 18/2001, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    15. Volker Nocke & Martin Peitz & Konrad Stahl, 2007. "Platform Ownership," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 5(6), pages 1130-1160, December.
    16. Amnon Levy & Michael R. Caputo & Benoît Pierre Freyens, 2013. "Royalties, Entry and Spectrum Allocation to Broadcasting," Economics Working Papers wp13-02, School of Economics, University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
    17. Hans Jarle Kind & Tore Nilssen & Lars Sørgard, 2009. "Business Models for Media Firms: Does Competition Matter for How They Raise Revenue?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(6), pages 1112-1128, 11-12.
    18. Nilssen, Tore & Sørgard, Lars, 2000. "TV Advertising, Program Quality, and Product-Market Oligopoly," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt2zp943hj, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    19. Lin Panlang, 2011. "Market Provision of Program Quality in the Television Broadcasting Industry," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-22, March.
    20. Andrei Hagiu, 2004. "Two-Sided Platforms: Pricing and Social Efficiency," Discussion papers 04035, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L82 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Entertainment; Media

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:restud:v:72:y:2005:i:4:p:947-972. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/restud .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.