Media firms sometimes allow consumers to pay to remove advertisements from an advertisement-based product. We formally examine an ad-based monopolist's incentives to introduce this option. When deciding whether to introduce the option to pay, the monopolist compares the potential direct revenues from consumers with lost advertising revenues from not intermediating those consumers to advertisers. If the option is introduced, the media firm increases advertising quantity to make the option to pay more attractive. This hurts consumers, but benefits the media firm and advertisers. Total welfare may increase or decrease. Perhaps surprisingly, more annoying advertisements may lead to an increase in advertising quantity.
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.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Research Institute of Industrial Economics in its series Working Paper Series with number
789.
Length: 15 pages Date of creation: 13 Feb 2009 Date of revision: Handle: RePEc:hhs:iuiwop:0789
Contact details of provider: Postal: Research Institute of Industrial Economics, Box 55665, SE-102 15 Stockholm, Sweden Phone: +46 8 665 4500 Fax: +46 8 665 4599 Email: Web page: http://www.ifn.se/ More information through EDIRC
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Elisabeth Gustafsson).