In an earlier article Dixit and Norman studied the welfare effects of advertising. They came to the surprising conclusion that, even accepting postadvertising tastes as the welfare standard, monopoly advertising which raises price is excessive. The point of this comment is to show how and why their analysis fails to apply to the case where there is more than one consumer. Their analysis assumes that preadvertising consumption is distributed efficiently according to postadvertising tastes. Since this is not generally the case, there are gains to advertising ignored by Dixit and Norman.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 11 (1980) Issue (Month): 2 (Autumn) Pages: 749-752 Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML
(with abstract),
plain text
(with abstract),
BibTeX,
RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite),
ReDIF
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: ().
Related research
Keywords:
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)
Giovanni Immordino, 2007.
"Advertising and Cost Reduction,"
CSEF Working Papers
177, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
[Downloadable!]
Other versions: